Thanks to all for replying. I did run them as daemons, as /usr/bin/spamd&
/usr/bin/spamassassin &. The 'ps' command, lists them as running
process.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, JC wrote:
> What do you mean you started spamd AND spamassassin? What commands did you
> run?
>
> -Original Message-
>
What do you mean you started spamd AND spamassassin? What commands did you
run?
-Original Message-
From: Mail Monitor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] How do I confirm functioning of SA
Hi,
I have installed SA
At 09:10 AM 11/26/2003, Mail Monitor wrote:
I have installed SA on FreeBSD 4.7, I have started spamd
and spamassassin (both are in /usr/bin directory); i donot
know how to confirm functionality of spmassassin, there is
no extra header information in the received mail. Following is
my /etc/mail/spam
Actually, I realise now that my answer was to your subject line, and not to
your actual question. lol sorry bout that! ;)
-Original Message-
From: JC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:18 AM
To: 'Mail Monitor'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk
Check your incoming mail headers for "X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.XX" or X-spam-status.
-Original Message-
From: Mail Monitor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] How do I confirm functioning of SA
Hi,
--On Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:40 PM +0530 Mail Monitor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have installed SA on FreeBSD 4.7, I have started spamd
> and spamassassin (both are in /usr/bin directory); i donot
> know how to confirm functionality of spmassassin, there is
> no extra header information
> I'm new to the list, and I'm trying to figure out a way of detecting
> words with obfuscated characters (i.e. "@pp!3", "app13" = "apple").
You could try using popcorn, weeds, and backhair rules. You can get them
here:
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm
Bret
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:11:25PM -0600, Michael Howell wrote:
> I'm more or less a newbie to Perl, so can you explain why your form is
> better? All I see is 2 distinct ways of selecting from a set.
Well, it's kind of a long discussion about backtracking and state machines
... ;) I'd recommen
Theo,
I'm more or less a newbie to Perl, so can you explain why your form is
better? All I see is 2 distinct ways of selecting from a set.
Thanks,
Mike
Computer Support Specialist
Oklahoma State University Physical Plant CIS
109 PPA Building
Stillwater, OK 74078
(405) 744-6993
> On Thu, Nov 1
You'll want to look at http://www.exit0.us/index.php/MaskedWordList
Take a gander at the link to Chris' Mediocre ObfuScript, which is soon
(I hear) to be upgraded to Chris' Somewhat Adequate ObfuScript.
-tom
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:33:28PM -0600, Michael Howell wrote:
> /(?:a|4|@)pp(?:l|1|!)(?:e|3)/i
ewww... at least do:
/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
> This will catch "@pp!3" and "app13", but it also catches "apple". Can
> anyone help me work the regex so it skips the word if it's spelled
> normally?
Michael,
The key is a negative lookahead:
/(?!apple)(?:a|4|@)pp(?:l|1|!)(?:e|3)/i
I've written a script that will help you create obfuscated phrase rules.
Check it out -- link in sig.
--
Chris Thielen
Easily generate SpamAssassin rules to catch obfuscated spam phrases:
http://www.sandgnat.com/c
Funny you should ask, as 2.60 filtered the forward just fine on my side with
pbw installed. Even without Backhair this would have been filtered.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Howard Brazee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:45 AM
To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> -Original Message-
> From: Howard Brazee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:45 AM
> To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> Subject: [SAtalk] How do I filter something like this?
>
>
> I can't see any recognized words in this:
>
>
>
>
>
*snip* OBFU
This is a
Tony White wrote:
The subject says it all. I know the defaults on this, and have not
changed them. I'm fairly certain that SA is autolearning spam --
because of the growth of the bayes_seen and bayes_toks databases. But
I'm not sure about ham at all. Currently, I'm not sending outgoing
mai
Hi Russell,
if you are using blacklists in the local.cf file you have to put the
whitelist_* over this line because if not won't work fine.
If you want you can take a look at my local.cf file in my site @
http://www.surestorm.com/data/SpamAssassin_local.cf.html
if you have comments just drop m
JJensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> line, in addition to the current tests performed on the body only?
1. use bayes, it can use funky spellings like this
2. add a rule:
header LOCAL_VIAGRO Subject =~ /viagro/i
describe LOCAL_VIAGRO whatever description you want
score LOCAL_VIAGRO 1.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:32:28 -0600:
> How are you doing this black listed regular expression thing to block
> any and all ocurrances of the V word?
>
This is done by Sourceforge, not by the list.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet
Chris Halverson wrote:
> > The filter stores its files in $HOME/.spamassassin (unless otherwise set
> > up), you can look for those files and see if the database grows. Check
> > bayes_msgcount, it simply contains a period for each entry in the
> > database.
>
> I've run into this issue too. I ha
Leo Huang wrote:
[snip]
> Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping:
> spamphrase_highest_score 38220
> Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: spamphrase
> 38220 temple kiff
[snip]
These would be due to invalid-in-v2.5x configuration lines in one of
your c
Jim Ford writes:
>On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 05:40:35PM +0200, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>
>> The filter stores its files in $HOME/.spamassassin (unless otherwise set
>> up), you can look for those files and see if the database grows. Check
>> bayes_msgcount, it simply contains a period for each entry
At Mon Jun 30 17:59:21 2003, Patrick Morris wrote:
>
> The header will only appear if the message is near the low or high end
> of Bayes scoring. Your average message, which will have no Bayes score,
> also won't have a Bayes header.
If you to get a bayes score regardless, just put the followi
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 06:29:43PM +0100, Jim Ford wrote:
> I'd noticed the periods in bayes_msgcount. Surely it's an odd way to keep
> a counter - I wonder why it's done that way.
that way the file size could be used as the message count (don't have
to worry about concurrent updates to the file,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 05:40:35PM +0200, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> The filter stores its files in $HOME/.spamassassin (unless otherwise set
> up), you can look for those files and see if the database grows. Check
> bayes_msgcount, it simply contains a period for each entry in the
> database.
I'
Chris Halverson writes:
>Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The filter stores its files in $HOME/.spamassassin (unless otherwise set
>> up), you can look for those files and see if the database grows. Check
>> bayes_msgcount, it simply contains a period for each entry in the
>> dat
The header will only appear if the message is near the low or high end
of Bayes scoring. Your average message, which will have no Bayes score,
also won't have a Bayes header.
Chris Halverson wrote:
I've run into this issue too. I have a user who fed (via sa-learn) a
few thousand messages to SA
Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The filter stores its files in $HOME/.spamassassin (unless otherwise set
> up), you can look for those files and see if the database grows. Check
> bayes_msgcount, it simply contains a period for each entry in the
> database.
I've run into this issu
Leo Huang asked:
> I installed spamassassin 2.55, and set use_bayes, file mode and bayes_path
> in the local.cf. How can I konw the bayes filter is running or not?
When the filter is just installed, it is in auto-learn mode, and will not
kick in until it has learned from 200 messages. This can ta
> debug: bayes: 27911 tie-ing to DB file R/O
> /var/spool/spamassassin/bayes_toks
> debug: bayes: 27911 tie-ing to DB file R/O
> /var/spool/spamassassin/bayes_seen
> debug: debug: Only 108 spam(s) in Bayes DB < 200
> debug: bayes: 27911 untie-ing
> debug: bayes: 27911 untie-ing db_toks
> debug: bay
Leo Huang wrote on Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:01:31 +1000:
> How can I konw the bayes filter is running or not?
>
Use the spamassassin debuging option:
spamassassin -D < mail
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http:/
yes: 27911 untie-ing db_toks
debug: bayes: 27911 untie-ing db_seen
debug: Score set 1 chosen.
I think I need 200 messages to make it work?
Leo
- Original Message -
From: "SqM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 11:42
> Hello,
>
> I installed spamassassin 2.55, and set use_bayes, file mode and bayes_path
> in the local.cf. How can I konw the bayes filter is running or not?
Run the command "spamassassin -D --lint"
You will se a bunch of lines including bayes stuff..
Beware that the bayesian rules does not star
filters work with the -q switch
as well, probably starting next month when I have some more free time.
Regards,
Rick
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Earnshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Ho
En réponse à Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 01:46:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Looking at the bayes db it seems I have more than the 200 messages in
> spam
> > and ham categories required for bayes to kick in, however in the SA
> reports
> > I never se
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Clayton, Nik [IT] wrote:
> > But if there's a "man spamassassin", why isn't there a "man
> > spamassassin.conf?" There's a "man slapd.conf" and a "man
> > slapd.access"
> > etc. etc.
I agree, Tony. There should be a spamassassin.conf(5) man page.
> If your Perl installation
Thomas Kinghorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How do I whitelist the postmaster address?
>
> I was thinking:
> whitelist_to_rcpt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Any assistance would be appreciated.
Interesting. Instead of making up a new configuration option, I suggest
using one supported by SpamAss
> Even when people ask questions which are answered each week and are also
> covered in the FAQ, or questions where the answers are blatantly obvious
> (i.e. "How do I unsubscribe"), someone (usually Tony) answers them with
> a smile. :) Even if they're just directing the person asking to the
> r
| See? This is one reason that I want to leave.
|
| Everyone seems to *rude.*
If the people here seem rude, by all means stay away from the procmail list.
Your head is likely to explode if you join that one.
I've been on a lot of lists over the years - ISP, OSS, musical bands, bird
owners & watch
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Steve Thomas wrote:
> There's a couple of ways you could do this. You could write a rule that
> assigned a negative score, such as:
>
> header SUBJECT_FOOBAR Subject =~ /FOOBAR/
> describe SUBJECT_FOOBAR Subject contains FOOBAR
> scoreSUBJECT_FOOBAR -100.0
>
> OR.
There's a couple of ways you could do this. You could write a rule that
assigned a negative score, such as:
header SUBJECT_FOOBAR Subject =~ /FOOBAR/
describe SUBJECT_FOOBAR Subject contains FOOBAR
scoreSUBJECT_FOOBAR -100.0
OR...
you add a condition to your procmail recipe:
:0fw
*
Yes, something addded it, but it wasn't SpamAssassin.
- Original Message -
From: "Drav Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Arne Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, Decembe
Brian May wrote:
> Yes, something addded it, but it wasn't SpamAssassin.
Oh I agree, I'm just saying that the lad isnt imagining things ;)
D.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Learn to use you
Brian May wrote:
> The mail is being returned becase the address you are sending it to doesn't
> exist. or no route to the domain, or a misconfiguration on your system. It
> has *nothing* to do with SpamAssassin.
But the mime encoded mail DOES have a text/plain part with that message
"Our spam fi
n, or a misconfiguration on your system. It
has *nothing* to do with SpamAssassin.
- Original Message -
From: "Arne Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Duncan Findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 9:25 AM
Sub
Arne Fischer wrote:
> "Our spam filter rejected this transaction." is generated by a program on MY
> side. I get a message, that this eMail couldn't be delivered.
Which was delivered to you because the bounce (being sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) was undeliverable, and the 'bounce of
a bounce' ended
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 06:55:07PM +0100, Arne Fischer wrote:
> Yes, that's true, but who generated the message "Our spam filter rejected
> this transaction."? It was a program on my side and as far as I know there's
> nothing else running than Spamassassin that could have generated it. So who
> se
>Well, whatever the issue, it's not spamassassin. According to the pasted
>message, your mail system blocked the message, then couldn't send the
>bounce back, so you got it.
Yes, that's true, but who generated the message "Our spam filter rejected
this transaction."? It was a program on my side a
> How are you using spamassassin? Is it behind some other filtering agent,
> like mailscanner, mimedefang, or something else?
> My hunch is that you're
> using mailscanner and you have it set to reject or bounce messages that
> spamassassin says are spam. If so, you'll need to modify your mailsca
How are you using spamassassin? Is it behind some other filtering agent,
like mailscanner, mimedefang, or something else? My hunch is that you're
using mailscanner and you have it set to reject or bounce messages that
spamassassin says are spam. If so, you'll need to modify your mailscanner
conf
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 06:25:01PM +0100, Arne Fischer wrote:
> "Our spam filter rejected this transaction." is generated by a program on MY
> side. I get a message, that this eMail couldn't be delivered.
Well, whatever the issue, it's not spamassassin. According to the pasted
message, your mail
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:12:21PM +0100, Arne Fischer wrote:
> > I tried, but I couldn't really find out how to disable the automatic
replies
> > to spam. I receive many emails that tell me, that my email with the
content
> > "Our spam filter rejected this transaction."
> > couldn't be delivered
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:12:21PM +0100, Arne Fischer wrote:
> I tried, but I couldn't really find out how to disable the automatic replies
> to spam. I receive many emails that tell me, that my email with the content
> "Our spam filter rejected this transaction."
> couldn't be delivered. But I do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arne Fischer) writes:
> I tried, but I couldn't really find out how to disable the automatic
> replies to spam. I receive many emails that tell me, that my email
> with the content "Our spam filter rejected this transaction."
> couldn't be delivered. But I don't want Spamassassi
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:10:36AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
> But there's nothing to point spamassassin to the AWL under
> /var/spool/spamassassin.
Back when I still ran site-wide AWL, I think I just made a symlink from
~spamd/.spamassassin -> /var/spool/spamassassin (or soemthing like
that). W
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:07:08AM -0700, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> Right now, we are running on a very "narrow pipe" (local ISPs suck), so I am
> trying to conserve bandwidth. How do I stop SA from checking razor?
score RAZOR_CHECK 0
or if you're using Razor2
score RAZOR2_CHECK 0
--
Randoml
02, 2002 3:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] How do I know if razor-checking is active?
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:35:18 -0500
Matthew Prentice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the same question about whether Razor is working for our
> installation. When I run the s
Jan Korger said:
> Process sample-spam and you'll know. This is in razor's db.
Actually, sometimes it isn't. I don't know why. Also, reporting it
and then checking against it doesn't seem to work anymore. :(
The only way remaining seems to be to run with -D, and keep an eye out for
debug mes
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:35:18 -0500
Matthew Prentice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the same question about whether Razor is working for our
> installation. When I run the spamassassin -tD < sample-spam.txt it does
> say Razor is detecting the message. However, when I run the message
> through
Well, it's a wide variety of IP's, but it is client-only type traffic. The
razor servers do not need to initiate connections to port 2703 on your
machine, so is there any significant risk in allowing your machine to
initiate client connections to any outside machine on port 2703 (provided
there
ing RedHat 8, Sendmail 8.12.5, SA 2.43, and MIMEDefang 2.24.
Thanks.
Matthew Prentice
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:02 PM
To: Henry Kwan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] How do I know if razor-checking is act
At the command line run:
spamassassin -tD < sample-spam.txt
At the top will be extensive debug output including any problems reading
the rules file, any lack of DNS support, etc, as well as debug status while
running razor.
At 11:34 AM 11/1/2002 -0800, Henry Kwan wrote:
Hi.
Have been using SA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Henry Kwan wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Have been using SA for a little while and with the 2.43 update, finally
> decided to install razor as well. But when I do 'make test', it reports
> back that both razor tests have been skipped with no r
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:34:06AM -0800, Henry Kwan wrote:
> run the razor-client, it appears to be working so how can I tell if SA is
> utilizing razor for checks?
Run spamassassin or spamd with -D. If you haven't turned it off, you
could also check your razor log file. :)
--
Randomly Genera
Frank Pineau said:
> >Won't this get overwritten with the next upgrade they install? Is there
> >a more elegant solution (local.cf or some such thing)?
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of custom mods. :-)
wrong, I'm afraid!
anything in any file in /etc/mail/spamassassin will *not* be overwr
On 29 Oct 2002 09:41:08 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Won't this get overwritten with the next upgrade they install? Is there
>a more elegant solution (local.cf or some such thing)?
Welcome to the wonderful world of custom mods. :-)
---
This sf.net e
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 03:14, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Just grep for "http://spamassassin.org/tag"; in the installed .cf
> (configuration) files. Specifically, "10_misc.cf".
>
Won't this get overwritten with the next upgrade they install? Is there
a more elegant solution (local.cf or some such t
If you're using procmail, you'd use a recipe like one of these:
# to catch everything above your default threshhold
:0
* ^x-spam-status: yes
/dev/null
# to catch everything over a specified threshhold
# (number of stars to indicate the minimum score
# you want thrown out. this example would dump
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:48:31PM -0800, Vincent A. Palmieri wrote:
> Now after running SpamAssassin for a period of time, I would like for
> the spam to be directed straight to /dev/null what is the method to do
> so?
I wouldn't do that (no way to retrieve false positives), but you can tell
proc
"Pal Computer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Howdo I change the Body message as I want to direct our users to our
> own antispam home page and not http://www.spamassasin.org/tag?
>
> We will post our anti-spam policy and such at our own link, to avoid
> phone calls to explain the * SPAM ***
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 02:30 pm, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 01:58:01PM -0700, Jeff Shepherd wrote:
> > I'm not a PERL programmer and not familiar with unix expressions, but
> > to show I'm willing to do some footwork, I think I need to add
> > something like the following li
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 01:58:01PM -0700, Jeff Shepherd wrote:
>
> I'm not a PERL programmer and not familiar with unix expressions, but
> to show I'm willing to do some footwork, I think I need to add
> something like the following lines to
> /usr/share/spamassassin/20_head_tests.cf
>
> hea
Perl regular expressions are a little different from DOS-style file globbing
patterns. The perl way of saying "match anything" is /.*/ not /*/ -- the "*"
means "repeat the previous thing 0 to infinity times" and the "." means "any
character". So /*/ by itself is meaningless and will actually gen
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:07:35PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:09:03PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Vivek Khera wrote:
| >
| > > If there is such an RFC, how would I then use my personal email address,
| > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], if there is no m
> Are you sure? daf.2y.net just has an "A" record... I get mail just fine...
It will works also if you have only an A reccord, as the domain is a
real one and the machine a real one.
But with an MX reccord you would avoid to trigger the rule NO_MX_FOR_FROM
Olivier
_
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:09:03PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> > If there is such an RFC, how would I then use my personal email address,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], if there is no machine with that domain name assigned
> > to its IP address (it is a virtu
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Lars Hansson mused:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:44:31 +0100
> "Matt Sergeant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Also, I cannot stress enough: Use a caching nameserver!
>
> I presume you mean use a caching nameserver on the machine running spamd.
> Most setups will already have a
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Vivek Khera wrote:
> If there is such an RFC, how would I then use my personal email address,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], if there is no machine with that domain name assigned
> to its IP address (it is a virtual address)?
Even if there isn't a machine with an "A" record for khera.
> "CRH" == Craig R Hughes writes:
CRH> address. If they're actually sending from AOL, the RFC suggests
CRH> they should set the From to be @aol.com
What RFC would that be? If there is such an RFC, how would I then use
my personal email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED], if there is no machine
wi
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Doug Crompton wrote:
BS>
BS> > What can I tell this person to do differently to avoid this?
BS>
BS> When using an AOL dialup to connect, reconfigure the user agent to use an
BS> AOL address as the sender. (AOL doesn't sell dialups without assigning
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Doug Crompton wrote:
> What can I tell this person to do differently to avoid this?
When using an AOL dialup to connect, reconfigure the user agent to use an
AOL address as the sender. (AOL doesn't sell dialups without assigning a
"screen name" that can receive email, do th
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Amusing concept. I suggest:
>
> :0fw
> |spamc
>
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> ! [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Amend of course for your own local representative and senators.
>
> C
>
What we really need is legislation
Bart wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Doug Crompton wrote:
>
> > The following message (headers below) was tagged as spam. It is not.
What
> > I don't understand is why does it say yahoo.com is a forged address and
> > via a tagged relay?
>
> SA says the yahoo.com address was forged because the From
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:44:31 +0100
"Matt Sergeant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I cannot stress enough: Use a caching nameserver!
I presume you mean use a caching nameserver on the machine running spamd.
Most setups will already have a caching nameserver on another machine.
--
Lars Hanss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 24 Apr 2002 8:15 am, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>
> SM> Personally I simply disable all network checks by using the -L option
> to spamassassin SM> and spamd. I don't see enough benefit from the network
> checks, they
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
SM> Personally I simply disable all network checks by using the -L option to
spamassassin
SM> and spamd. I don't see enough benefit from the network checks, they cause a scan of
SM> one email to take seconds instead of a fraction of a second, and there are too many
SM> fa
Doug Crompton wrote:
DC> spam are the ones that would respond. Can we forward this junk to our US
DC> representitives or somewhere else where it is noticed?
Amusing concept. I suggest:
:0fw
|spamc
:0
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
! [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amend of cours
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:34:22 -0400 (EDT)
"Doug Crompton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a way to just select a type to not score - like dialup?
If you're not interested in doing rbl lookups at all you can just
disable them in local.cf.
local.cf:
skip_rbl_checks 1
--
Lars Hansson
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>
> In this case, the rule RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM has a score of 2.0
> points, which will be added to just about any mail sent by an AOL
> dialup user. Some people would agree with having any AOL user start
> out with a 2 point disadvantage. But if you
"Doug Crompton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> What can I tell this person to do differently to avoid this?
> When you say it is a known address from where spam was sent
> (dialup) do you mean the dialup account of the original AOL user?
Here is what relays.osirusoft.com has to say when I look up t
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> > I assume this person has an AOL account and sent mail from Yahoo.
>
> They sent mail from their home PC using an AOL dialup to connect to the
> Internet and with their user agent's idea of the sender's address set to
> be a Yahoo! account. That
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Doug Crompton wrote:
> The following message (headers below) was tagged as spam. It is not. What
> I don't understand is why does it say yahoo.com is a forged address and
> via a tagged relay?
As for the tagged relay, nslookup says:
Name:44.114.135.172.relays.osirusoft.
91 matches
Mail list logo
