At 10:55 AM 1/27/2004, Mark Merchant wrote:
i can get AWL working with regular spamassassin, but NOT with spamc/d.
is there tip/trick i'm missing ?
what -u parameters are you using?
If you don't use -u, and both spamd and spamc are run as root, spamd will
su itself to nobody for safety.
On most
from /var/log/messages
Jan 26 09:40:46 deimos spamd: The -a option has been removed
Jan 26 09:40:46 deimos spamd: spamd startup succeeded
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 11:41, Michael Parker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:55:17AM -0500, Mark Merchant wrote:
> > i can get AWL working with regular
i can get AWL working with regular spamassassin, but NOT with spamc/d.
is there tip/trick i'm missing ?
> I've been using auto whitelist for a while now, but today while doing some
> experimentation I'm wondering if the explicit (auto) white listing feature
> is working at all (version 2.61)? I'
> The whitelist part is a misnomer. It's an automatic score adjuster
> (white/black-list if you want).
I realize this. Just figure that the name should be more informative.
Better yet, shouldn't it be somehow tied to the bayes DB? These
messages are correctly scoring "0% chance of spam" from B
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 03:42:05PM -0800, Chris Petersen wrote:
> My question is why the auto *whitelist* is adding points to the
> message. Shouldn't it be subtracting them? Before the spam started,
The whitelist part is a misnomer. It's an automatic score adjuster
(white/black-list if you wan
I just downloaded it a few weeks ago (perhaps I just missed 2.61?). The
tarball expanded to a directory called "Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60" and
spamassassin -V returns "SpamAssassin version 2.60"
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 03:52 PM 12/15/2003, J. S. Greenfield wrote:
The documentation suggests that t
At 03:52 PM 12/15/2003, J. S. Greenfield wrote:
The documentation suggests that this feature is turned on by default, with
a factor of 0.5 -- however, in my installation, I see absolutely no sign
of an auto-whitelist file anywhere (let alone where it is supposed to
be). I tried setting use_auto
At 10:27 AM 10/15/03 -0400, James Herschel wrote:
I've received a few spams where the AWL has assigned a large negative score.
I've attached the headers from a spam I received today "Kobe's Court"
(haha). The email address that this came from and went to are, to me,
pretty obvious indications of
At 10:27 AM 10/15/03 -0400, James Herschel wrote:
By looking
at these headers, can anyone suggest a fix that would correct the AWL
database and stop this from happening in the first place?
First, sorry for the short check the FAQ reply the first go around. I
didn't look low enough in the mail to
AFAICT you'd do
auto_whitelist_factor 0
use_bayes 0 will disable bayes, not the (unfortunately named - it's as much an auto
blacklist as an auto whitelist, innit?) auto whitelisting feature.
I hope if I'm mistaken somebody will jump in and correct me. I remember this being
asked a few months a
The -a commandline switch is to enable AWL, if you omit this when calling
SA, you will not use AWL.
Frederic Tarasevicius
Internet Information Services, Inc.
Doug Ledbetter wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> What enables or disables the auto-whitelisting feature?
> Would it be use_bayes?
>
>
At 01:21 PM 9/4/2003 -0400, Pat Traynor wrote:
I think I have a general understanding of how the auto-whitelist process
works, and please correct me if I'm wrong. As you get "acceptable"
emails from addresses (and/or ip addresses?), that address improves its
"score". Then, if that address sends a
At 07:35 PM 8/12/2003 +0100, Peter Doherty wrote:
i noticed a post to this list in the achives, on this subject, but didnt
see a response.
does the AWL switch work in sa-learn?
Umm.. what would it do if it did work?
---
This SF.Net email
i would presume the idea is that it would add any email addresses
learned as spam to the auto whitelist?
i dont know if it exists or not, it was just written about in michael
bell's how to but doesnt seem to be a feature of the actual software
pete
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 07:35 PM 8/12/2003 +0
At 08:40 PM 8/12/2003 +0100, Peter Doherty wrote:
i would presume the idea is that it would add any email addresses learned
as spam to the auto whitelist?
i dont know if it exists or not, it was just written about in michael
bell's how to but doesnt seem to be a feature of the actual software
Ah
CTED]>
To: "Thomas Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Auto Whitelist strangeness
>
> This is a very common misunderstanding, which results from a general la
At 12:48 AM 7/8/2003 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
I just got a spam which scored 13.80 but had a -4.8 point AWL adjustment. I
don't understand how it could have been whitelisted because it is obviously
porn spam. It even rates a BAYES_70. How is it possible that it was
whitelisted?
This is a ver
> From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 02:38, John Rudd wrote:
> > *taps on the microphone again* Did I forget to shower or something?
>
>
> Patience is a virtue.
>
> Maybe someone is researching the answers(s) to your many questions.
> An expectation of a one day response t
tor, 2003-02-20 kl. 08:38 skrev John Rudd:
> *taps on the microphone again* Did I forget to shower or something?
Well did you?
Or might one question at a time work better?
Best,
Tony
--
Tony Earnshaw
When you rob a person of his illusions,
you are robbing him of his happiness
e-post:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Jorg B. wrote:
> After doing a `perl -MCPAN -e shell` install I have noticed that 2 of my
> servers use auto-whitelist.dir & auto-white.pag files and the other 2
> servers use just one file called auto-whitelist.
>
> Why is that ?
>
> How can I make su
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 the voices made Rob Mangiafico write:
> Thanks for any clarification on this issue :)
The AWL is actually more like an automated scorekepper, acting both ways (ie
negative and postives scores).
/Tony
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards f
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 19:46, Paul Rushing wrote:
> This message pertains to using AWL and SQL options.
>
> if you will look at the spamd and Conf.pm code, you will see that
> per-user AWL files are by default defined as ~/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist
>
> This depends on the setuid code in spamd
This message pertains to using AWL and SQL options.
if you will look at the spamd and Conf.pm code, you will see that
per-user AWL files are by default defined as ~/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist
This depends on the setuid code in spamd, so if you specify
'-u spamduser' option, you can get a si
Yes, in a previous message I included the code breakdown of Pauls
explaination of why this is so.
Brian
On 4 Apr 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Really? That's unexpected. You should be able to use both, as long as
> you specify some auto_whitelist_path which exists, which probably means
> us
Really? That's unexpected. You should be able to use both, as long as
you specify some auto_whitelist_path which exists, which probably means
using sitewide AWL unless you get creative. Does that not work
currently?
C
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 07:12, Brian wrote:
>
>
> But it is mutually exclus
umm, back track just a little bit. You probably could do a site-wide auto
whitelist while still using SQL. But, you can't do per user AWL and use SQL..
Not with spamd anyway.
Quoting Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Yes, in a previous message I included the code breakdown of Pauls
> expl
> But it is mutually exclusive. If you use SQL, you can in no way shape or
> form use AWL, it won't work. You can't use them both at the same time
> with the current code, so thats mutually exclusive.
This isn't true. I just set up spamd to use SQL for preferences, and it still
does auto-whitel
But it is mutually exclusive. If you use SQL, you can in no way shape or
form use AWL, it won't work. You can't use them both at the same time
with the current code, so thats mutually exclusive.
Brian
On 4 Apr 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Not really mutually exclusive, just probably AWL w
Sorry. I can't reproduce it. Didn't mean to raise a false alarm.
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:39 PM
> To: CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson
> Cc: Shane Hickey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
What are the permissions on /home/spamc itself?
C
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 10:29, Shane Hickey wrote:
> Howdy all, I'm sure I'm doing something stupid, but I can't get spamd to
> start when I specify -a.
>
> I start spamd like so "spamd -d -x -F1 -u spamc"
>
> I'm starting spamc out of procmail l
Not really mutually exclusive, just probably AWL won't behave the way
you expect... It should be pretty easy to create a SQLBasedWhitelist.pm
for people who want AWL to store stuff in the SQL db. I'm really pretty
surprised noone's done it and contributed it back yet.
C
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 2
* Paul Rushing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020403 23:42]:
> no, auto-whitelist does not use the SQL database. (only uses the dbm
> file in the user home directory)
ok. Is there a way to list the AWL DBM file?
>
> in the current spamd it appears that SQL and AWL are mutually exclusive,
> although th
no, auto-whitelist does not use the SQL database. (only uses the dbm
file in the user home directory)
in the current spamd it appears that SQL and AWL are mutually exclusive,
although that's not in the documentation.
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> If you are using SQL, does the auto-whitelist also
Really? That's extremely unexpected. Does it really happen?
C
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> rearrange the spamd switches to:
>
> spamd -d -c -a -u spamc -F1
>
> the other day I was playing with spamd and saw that -F must be last
> otherwise any switch after it is ignored. If this i
Shane Hickey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] auto-whitelist problem
>
>
> Hmm... I changed the way I start spamd to "spamd -d -c -a -F1 -u spamc"
> a
They are
drwx--3 spamcspamc4096 Apr 3 11:12 spamc
I've also tried 770, no dice.
Shane
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 16:37, Craig Hughes wrote:
> What are the permissions on /home/spamc itself?
>
> C
>
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 10:29, Shane Hickey wrote:
> > Howdy all, I'm sure I'
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:48 PM
> > To: CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] auto-whitelist problem
> >
> >
> > Hmm... I changed the way I start spamd to "spamd -d -c
Hmm... I changed the way I start spamd to "spamd -d -c -a -F1 -u spamc"
and then restarted spamd. I got the same thing,
Starting spamd: Cannot open auto_whitelist_path
/home/spamc/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist: Permission denied
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 12:05, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>
Try adding the -c option to spamd.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shane
> Hickey
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] auto-whitelist problem
>
>
> Howdy all, I'm sure I'm doing some
> How about -t does a "test then undo" on the auto-whitelist?
Hi C -- still (just barely) reading mail ;)
Problem is that the AWL tests check to ensure that after 3 separate
invocations the AWL has been updated. so "test then undo" would
still not work.
BTW a related thing is that the tests sh
How about -t does a "test then undo" on the auto-whitelist?
C
on 1/29/02 8:08 PM, Justin Mason at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Justin Mason said:
>> Greg Ward said:
>>
>>> I think his suggestion was right on: don't update the auto-whitelist in
>>> testing mode.
>>
>> yeah, I agree. Must imp
Justin Mason said:
> Greg Ward said:
>
> > I think his suggestion was right on: don't update the auto-whitelist in
> > testing mode.
>
> yeah, I agree. Must implement this...
hmm, don't think I'm going to get a chance to ;)
Craig/Matt -- the tricky thing here is that 2 of the tests in "t" re
Greg Ward said:
> I think his suggestion was right on: don't update the auto-whitelist in
> testing mode.
yeah, I agree. Must implement this...
--j.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/s
Thanks for the responses. I am aware of the -R arg to spamassassin,
but here's what happens when I try:
ROOT@dahlia --> ./read_dbm $PMDIR/spamassassin_auto-whitelist |
grep armstrong
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
ROOT@dahlia --> echo "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" |
spamassassin -R
ROOT@da
It is disabled by default of course -- you have to turn it on with the -a
flag to spamd...
C
on 1/29/02 6:12 AM, Matt Sergeant at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> As a point-of-interest related to this, how does one remove a
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 05:43, J. Davis wrote:
> As a point-of-interest related to this, how does one remove an
> address from the auto whitelist database (DBM)?
The spamassassin man page says:
-W Add all email addresses, in the headers and body of the mail
message read from STDIN, to the a
.
> Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 6:44 AM
> To: Ethan Tuttle
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] auto whitelist behavior with spamassassin -t
>
>
> As a point-of-interest related to this, how does one remove an
> address from the auto whitelist databa
On 29 January 2002, Matt Sergeant said:
> The point was to whitelist people you regularly communicate with in case
> they send you something "spammy". Also to whitelist mailing lists.
>
> If it doesn't work we should consider disabling it.
I got (slightly) bitten by the same thing as the origina
- Original Message -
From: "J. Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As a point-of-interest related to this, how does one remove an
> address from the auto whitelist database (DBM)? And exactly how were
> you "poking around"? I have a small perl script which lists the
> addresses, suppose I could
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 8:43 am, J. Davis wrote:
> As a point-of-interest related to this, how does one remove an
> address from the auto whitelist database (DBM)? And exactly how were
> you "poking around"? I have a small perl script which lists the
> addresses, suppose I could extend it for e
As a point-of-interest related to this, how does one remove an
address from the auto whitelist database (DBM)? And exactly how were
you "poking around"? I have a small perl script which lists the
addresses, suppose I could extend it for editing, just curious how
others handle this task...
Also, I
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:16:35AM -0500, Fox wrote:
> My own spam warfare software, "SpamJammer", which I will be releasing the
> code to soon, will clear the whitelist count for an address any time a spam
> comes from that address. So if address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is almost whitelisted
> (three
My own spam warfare software, "SpamJammer", which I
will be releasing the code to soon, will clear the whitelist count for an
address any time a spam comes from that address. So if address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is almost whitelisted (three
successful messages) with two successful messages, but s
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Matt Sergeant said:
>
> > Can you tell us how the auto-whitelist algorithm works? Surely it should
be
> > an average system, so that 3 spams over time don't have much effect on
the
> > overall score. A simple way to do this
All go here.
C
On Tue, 2002-01-22 at 01:23, Justin Mason wrote:
Matt Sergeant said:
> Can you tell us how the auto-whitelist algorithm works? Surely it should be
> an average system, so that 3 spams over time don't have much effect on the
> overall score. A simple way to do this is
Matt Sergeant said:
> Can you tell us how the auto-whitelist algorithm works? Surely it should be
> an average system, so that 3 spams over time don't have much effect on the
> overall score. A simple way to do this is to make two keys for each address:
> score:=2.3, and count:=57. Then every ti
What about a blacklist? Or am I forgetting that there already is one?
The From addresses are usually faked, but I'm sure I see some names that
repeat, such as "Jack Strap" for porn spam and "Denise Smith, MBA" for a
whole bunch of money/insurance spam.
It would be nice to be able to drop address
With spamd at least, you need to specify an option to turn it on. It's off by default (or should be).
C
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 06:28, Bruce Marshall wrote:
Good pointAuto-Whitelist has been bothering me for awhile and I was
about to ask for an option to turn it off. I occas
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 01:49, Matt Sergeant wrote:
(*please* stop posting in HTML craig - it's a real PITA, especially because
Outlooks "switch" to plain text doesn't do nice reply-quoting)
I just found this "HTML" menu option to turn off per-message in
Evolution -- I think that might be n
On Monday 21 January 2002 3:02 am, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Spinning off this initial topic, I'm interested in hearing feedback from
> people on auto-whitelists. My own experience is that some "gray"
> spammers (people whose junk I might well have accidentally subscribed to
> in the past) tend to ov
(*please* stop posting in HTML craig - it's a real PITA, especially because
Outlooks "switch" to plain text doesn't do nice reply-quoting)
Can you tell us how the auto-whitelist algorithm works? Surely it should be
an average system, so that 3 spams over time don't have much effect on the
overall
Craig Hughes said:
> chmod 0666 /var/spool/spamassassin/auto*
Also,
chmod 1777 /var/spool/spamassassin
so the lockfiles can be created and deleted.
> Somehow the permissions on those files got set so that only root can
> write to them. But of course, you're running as nobody, so when it
> tri
Yup, sure enough the compile_now was happening way too soon. I've moved things around to make this better. It's in CVS, or use the attached patch.
C
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 11:36, Craig Hughes wrote:
chmod 0666 /var/spool/spamassassin/auto*
Somehow the permiss
chmod 0666 /var/spool/spamassassin/auto*
Somehow the permissions on those files got set so that only root can write to them. But of course, you're running as nobody, so when it tries to write, it's failing. I'll need to check if this is the code's fault. My initial guess is that compile_n
64 matches
Mail list logo
