SAproxy 1.2 uses 2.55. I'd suggest than Dan upgrade to SAproxy 1.2, of
course.
--
I just downloaded, but have not installed yet. maybe today.
In terms of writing new rules, the best place to begin is Matt Kettler's
rule writing guide. Is there a permanent URL for that? Maybe we can
add a li
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
"SpamAssassin 2.52-cvs". Here I'm absolutely stymied. There was never a
2.52-cvs in my tree. And "2003-03-20" doesn't look like "the latest" to me.
*Anybody else know what Dan is talking about?*
You are being excessively harsh, Tony.
Ouch ... sorry Dan I didn't mean to be har
Tony Earnshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "SpamAssassin 2.52-cvs". Here I'm absolutely stymied. There was never a
> 2.52-cvs in my tree. And "2003-03-20" doesn't look like "the latest" to me.
>
> *Anybody else know what Dan is talking about?*
You are being excessively harsh, Tony.
SAproxy 1.1
Thanks for clarifying for me!
TC
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 15:15, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
> In local.cf:
>
> score BASE64_ENC_TEXT 3.9
>
>
> If you do it to the actual rule, your changes will be lost, should you
> choose to upgrade.
---
This SF.
Thomas Cameron wrote on 14 Jun 2003 15:06:23 -0500:
> Would you mind terribly showing me how you did that? Is it in
> local.cf? Can you show me what you wrote in which config file to change
> the score of a stock rule?
>
simply put
score rule_set_name 5.0
in the local.cf
to change that rule
PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] a few suggestions
>
>
> On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 09:18, Dan Baker wrote:
>
> >
> > I changed the BASE64_ENC_TEXT score to 3.9 in my rules file, and as you
> > can see, that was the only test that triggered.
>
> Wo
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 09:18, Dan Baker wrote:
>
> I changed the BASE64_ENC_TEXT score to 3.9 in my rules file, and as you
> can see, that was the only test that triggered.
Would you mind terribly showing me how you did that? Is it in
local.cf? Can you show me what you wrote in which config fi
Tony Earnshaw wrote:
Dan Baker wrote:
I downloaded the "latest" from SAproxy
the header that comes thru says:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52-cvs (1.174.2.7-2003-03-20-exp)
"SpamAssassin 2.52-cvs". Here I'm absolutely stymied. There was never a
2.52-cvs in my tree. And "2003-03-20
Dan Baker wrote:
I downloaded the "latest" from SAproxy
the header that comes thru says:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52-cvs (1.174.2.7-2003-03-20-exp)
"SpamAssassin 2.52-cvs". Here I'm absolutely stymied. There was never a
2.52-cvs in my tree. And "2003-03-20" doesn't look like "th
Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> one thing I noticed is that for messages that are enc-64 , it seems
> that other tests are NOT run on the decoded message. I'd suggest
> decodeding and then running all the regular tests OR if there is no
> plain or html message and its only enc-64, chances are 99% that
Dan Baker wrote:
Simon Byrnand wrote:
Well, if you think other tests are not being run on base-64 encoded
messages, then you may have found a bug, because all the normal tests,
including bayes are supposed to run on the decoded text. (AFAIK)
People who (normally) are so dense that they refuse to
Tony Earnshaw wrote:
Simon Byrnand wrote:
Well, if you think other tests are not being run on base-64 encoded
messages, then you may have found a bug, because all the normal tests,
including bayes are supposed to run on the decoded text. (AFAIK)
People who (normally) are so dense that they refus
Simon Byrnand wrote:
Well, if you think other tests are not being run on base-64 encoded
messages, then you may have found a bug, because all the normal tests,
including bayes are supposed to run on the decoded text. (AFAIK)
People who (normally) are so dense that they refuse to give software and
> I'm having great luck with spamassassin... a few things slip thru of
> course, and I wanted to post in case it gives developers a good idea.
>
> one thing I noticed is that for messages that are enc-64 , it seems that
> other tests are NOT run on the decoded message. I'd suggest decodeding
> and
Chris Santerre wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:22:34 -0400:
> I use a rule called MY_EVIL for URLs that contain frequently used links by
> spammers. They don't send from this address but they use it for images and
> unsubscribe links and such.
>
I think that *is* what Dan talked about. Instead of ad
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] a few suggestions
>
>
> I'm having great luck with spamassassin... a few things slip thru of
> course,
I'm having great luck with spamassassin... a few things slip thru of
course, and I wanted to post in case it gives developers a good idea.
one thing I noticed is that for messages that are enc-64 , it seems that
other tests are NOT run on the decoded message. I'd suggest decodeding
and then run
17 matches
Mail list logo
