> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Carrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:05 AM
> To: SpamAssassin list
> Subject: [SAtalk] My rules don't work.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Below I include a spam email I got. I have a series of rules
> that should
> have been act
- Original Message -
From: "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: ml.spamassassin-talk
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] My rules don't work.
> I was just thinking about PersistentPerl (see CPAN)...
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Funck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:27 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] My rules don't work.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The Base64 trick that spammers use will NOT look
You can't define rules in user prefs unless you also define the
allow_user_rules variable. See the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page
for reasons why this my not be a good idea.
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hello,
Below I include a spam email I got. I have a series of rules that should
have been ac
> Send yourself a simple message to test the rules.
>
> The Base64 trick that spammers use will NOT look at body rules! You may have
> recieved one with this trick.
Thanks for the suggestion. Yes I've done that already.
--
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A8
> "M" == Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> you'd get the benefit of your own private instance of an SA "daemon"
>> which would automagically disappear after a while of no activity.
M> If you want to run SA as daemon, run the SA daemon. :) It seems silliness to
M> try and daemonize spamassa
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:27:43PM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
> You can't define rules in user prefs unless you also define the
> allow_user_rules variable. See the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page
> for reasons why this my not be a good idea.
HHmm... that's inconvenient. This is what the m
> "TVD" == Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is the difference between spamc and spamassassin? Is this the only
>> difference? Can I safely replace 'spamc' by 'spamassassin' in my
>> .procmailrc?
TVD> See "man spamd". But basically, spamc/spamd is much more efficient th
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:14:25AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > So does that mean I'm stuck and there's nothing I can do to configure SA?
> > If it's a security hole, I have no expectation that I will be allowed to
> > do make
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> So does that mean I'm stuck and there's nothing I can do to configure SA?
> If it's a security hole, I have no expectation that I will be allowed to
> do make my own rules. So what am I supposed to do?
if you run "spamassassin", i
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:38:11AM -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Aha! So if I modify my .procmailrc file so it uses spamassassin instead of
> spamc then it WILL read my rules, right?
Yes.
> What is the difference between spamc and spamassassin? Is this the only
> difference? Can I safely rep
Maybe there was a rule parse error on an earlier rule.
Try running spamassassin --lint to check the rules, and see it turns
up anything.
A couple of suggestions:
1. Don't use .* -- it is unbounded and cen be really slow on a long message.
Use something line .{0,16}, where the choice of 16 is
12 matches
Mail list logo
