Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
Since you are already using MySQL, why not use MySQL user prefs? You
lose per user bays filtering but other that that it works great.
I probably could, as sitewide Bayes will work fine.. but I'm just a bit
lost on how to set it up.
I have postfix/uw-imap/spamassass
Hi,
Since you are already using MySQL, why not use MySQL user prefs? You
lose per user bays filtering but other that that it works great.
Regards,
Rick
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Hey all,
I'm working on a spamassassin gateway machine, and I'm a bit
confused on how to set up the machine so
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Russell H. wrote:
> I'm running the latest release (2.61) on FreeBSD with the standard
> sendmail+procmail config using spamc/spamd and it seems that user_prefs
> are not working. I've tried setting up whitelists/blacklists and played
> with the threshold value but it only
Just a quick note to let everyone know that I figured out my problem after
reading the spamd source.
It turns out that my /usr/local/bin/procmail had the setuid bit set on it
and it was owned by root therefore spamc was running as root rather than
as the user which resulted in spamd not reading th
--On Thursday, December 25, 2003 7:01 PM -0800 Douglas Kirkland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My understanding is that put the bigevil rule set into user_prefs will
not work. The only way I know how to test the rule set is to setup a
test server and try it. The rule set will have to be put the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 25 December 2003 12:41, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> I'd like to try some of the custom rules sets such as bigevil but not
> commit them to /etc/mail/spamassassin until I've tested them personally.
> Must I copy all the files into ~/.spamassas
--On Thursday, December 25, 2003 9:41 PM + Martin Radford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only configuration file that is read in ~/.spamassassin is
user_prefs.
Is there some directive one can put in user_prefs to "include" another
file, so that I don't need to dump all the different rule set
At Thu Dec 25 20:41:28 2003, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
> I'd like to try some of the custom rules sets such as bigevil but not
> commit them to /etc/mail/spamassassin until I've tested them personally.
> Must I copy all the files into ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, or can I drop
> them into ~/.spama
At 08:14 AM 11/21/2003, Jannetta S Lewis wrote:
I think I have everything working except that it doesn't seem to take the
user_prefs in
/home/user/.spamassassin into account. Is there extra configuration
neccessary for SA to
use the user's user prefs into consideration?
No, although by default "r
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jonathan Allen
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] user_prefs ignored SA 2.55
Hi All,
A simple question. I have just installed SA2.6 and have been teaching
it about spam
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 06:15:29PM +0100 or thereabouts, Jonathan Allen wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> A simple question. I have just installed SA2.6 and have been teaching
> it about spam with sa-learn. How do I turn on the Bayesian checking
> so that the learning is put to good use ?
In local.cf:
use_
Hi All,
A simple question. I have just installed SA2.6 and have been teaching
it about spam with sa-learn. How do I turn on the Bayesian checking
so that the learning is put to good use ?
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Allen
You'll need to do this in your SMTP
server (if possible).
If it allows, you would need to
modify how your SMTP server calls SA, for each user you would specify the path
to their user prefs file.
-p prefs,
--prefspath=file, --prefs-file=file Set user preferences
file
You would al
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:57:34 -0400 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Russell Premont"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I run the following
>
> sa-learn --spam --dir /spamassassin/Maildir/cur
>
> I get the following error
>
> Failed to create default user preference file
> /spamassassin/.spamassassin/user_
forget that last message, i have no idea why it
sent it twice, nor why it took a day later to send the second one.
apologies.
:-)
- Original Message -
From:
Alan
Fullmer
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:01
PM
Subject: [SAtalk] u
At 08:52 PM 9/11/03 -0600, Alan Fullmer wrote:
So I have 2 files: /home/dick/.spamassassin/user_prefs and
/home/jane/.spamassassin/user_prefs
It does not even touch those user_prefs files (checked it with the -D
option)
Well, you've never told spamc to use jane or dick's userid.. so it's going
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alan Fullmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] user_prefs
> At 08:03 PM 9/11/03 -0600, Alan Fullmer wrote:
> &
al Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alan Fullmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] user_prefs
> At 04:33 PM 9/11/03 -0600, Alan Fullmer wrote:
> >I am hav
At 08:03 PM 9/11/03 -0600, Alan Fullmer wrote:
my options i have ./spamd -d -c
No.. what entries are you trying to put into the user_prefs itself that
aren't working?
If it's a rule, well then read the manpage.. rules are ignored in
user_prefs when using spamd for security reasons.
If it's so
At 04:33 PM 9/11/03 -0600, Alan Fullmer wrote:
I am having difficulty, and was wondering if anyone can shed some light on
the subject.
I can't get spam assassin to read any user_prefs file.
it works with the local.cf just fine.
What settings are you trying to put in user_prefs?
How do you launch S
Hello Gerry,
Tuesday, August 26, 2003, 8:25:24 AM, you wrote:
GM> ... I do have two users that receive email from a yahoo group. ... is
GM> there a way to single out a subject line for white lists in the
GM> user_prefs file of spamassassin?
You probably don't want to do that.
Headers common to
At 11:25 AM 8/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
I have been using spamassassin for a few days now and love it! I have been
able to set up whitelists for users in in user_prefs with no problems so
far. I do have two users that receive email from a yahoo group. Normally I'd
add the email of the list's email
At 8/26/03 08:25 AM , Gerry Maddock wrote:
I have been using spamassassin for a few days now and love it! I have been
able to set up whitelists for users in in user_prefs with no problems so
far. I do have two users that receive email from a yahoo group. Normally I'd
add the email of the list's ema
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:21:22PM -0700, Vicki Brown wrote:
> My local tests (defined in ~/spamassassin/user_prefs) are not being run.
>
> In my ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs I have several tests, including this one:
>
> header CF_SUB_UID Subject =~ /vlb|Vicki/i
> describe CF_SUB_UID
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:10:15 -0500 Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> on 08/12/2003 02:07 PM Bob Apthorpe wrote:
>
> >
> > Has someone explained to him what a horrible idea this is? Spam is usually
> > forged to look like it came from a non-existant or innocent address and
> > bouncing
Matt Kettler writes:
> They do fail to directly mention that report_header and defang_mime are
> deprecated, but that note being directly addressed to users of versions
> older than 2.50 should be enough to suggest reading up on the report_safe
> option.
>
> I would agree however that it would
At 10:49 AM 8/12/2003 -0700, Scott Fraser wrote:
Good Morning Folks,
Well, after fighting with it longer than I care to admit, I do
believe
I now have a working Postfix/SpamAssassin/Amavisd system. What I am
trying to do now, is configure the system wide (and eventually on a per
user basis
We use amavisd-new with SQL preferences with user policies setup so that
the user can specify if they want mail to be rejected/tagged. The hard
part was writing the php interface to allow the user to change their
preferences. All of our users are virtual though, they only exist in
sql, so it wa
>-Original Message-
>From: Bob Apthorpe
>Most spamware doesn't expect a multiline banner and can't deliver to
>mailservers that use them. Basically, this will stop RFC non-compliant
>mailers in their tracks. The legal stuff is just for show but it's
>helpful to unambiguously post your po
At 00:57 -0400 2003-08-07, Matt Kettler wrote:
>By default user rules will be ignored in user_prefs if you use spamd/spamc.
I don't use either.
>This is done to prevent security exploits.
Is this new in 2.55? (new since 2.43)? Or did this file get overwritten for
me when I upgraded?
>
>See the "
> -Original Message-
> From: Vicki Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:45 AM
> To: Robert Menschel
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] user_prefs file - local rules not being used
>
>
> At 21:11 -0700 2003-0
Chris Santerre writes:
> Good point. There was a ton of threads about this when 2.55 came out.
> However a lot of people are still running 2.4x and waiting for 2.60. So this
> upgrade from 2.4x question will be popping up again.
>
> Any chance the devs could throw a quick bit about this in the 2
>-Original Message-
>From: Bob Apthorpe
>smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name\n
> By sending mail to this server, you agree to abide by the terms\n
> and conditions set forth on http://www.example.com/aup/\n
> Do not send unsolicited bulk mail to this server.\n
>
At 11:45 PM 8/9/2003 -0700, Vicki Brown wrote:
Anyone now using 2.4* with options report_header or defang_mime should be
wary if you "upgrade".
Apparently these were both rolled into the new "report_safe feature", except
the README fails to mention this.
Actually the very first lines of the README
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 20:07, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Scott Fraser wrote:
>
> > Good Morning Folks,
> > Well, after fighting with it longer than I care to admit, I do believe
> > I now have a working Postfix/SpamAssassin/Amavisd system. What I am
> > trying to do now, is conf
on 08/12/2003 02:07 PM Bob Apthorpe wrote:
Has someone explained to him what a horrible idea this is? Spam is usually
forged to look like it came from a non-existant or innocent address and
bouncing the spam just adds to network burden and implicit
denial-of-service attacks on those whose addresse
At 11:13 -0400 2003-08-11, Matt Kettler wrote:
>At 11:45 PM 8/9/2003 -0700, Vicki Brown wrote:
>>Anyone now using 2.4* with options report_header or defang_mime should be
>>wary if you "upgrade".
>>Apparently these were both rolled into the new "report_safe feature", except
>>the README fails to me
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Scott Fraser wrote:
> Good Morning Folks,
> Well, after fighting with it longer than I care to admit, I do believe
> I now have a working Postfix/SpamAssassin/Amavisd system. What I am
> trying to do now, is configure the system wide (and eventually on a per
> user basi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Vicki,
Saturday, August 9, 2003, 8:21:22 PM, you wrote:
VB> My local tests (defined in ~/spamassassin/user_prefs) are not being
VB> run.
VB> My reading of Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf indicates that tests defined
VB> in ~/spamassassin/user_prefs
By default user rules will be ignored in user_prefs if you use spamd/spamc.
This is done to prevent security exploits.
See the "allow_user_rules" option in man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf.
Either turn that on, or put custom rules only in local.cf.
At 21:11 -0700 2003-08-09, Robert Menschel wrote:
>>Vicki -- can you add a -D debugging parameter to your SA call from within
>procmail?
It turned out to be easiest to run this on the command line as the results
are many (and most not helpful... to me... I'm sure they're helpful to
somebody)
>The
At 00:57 -0400 2003-08-07, Matt Kettler wrote:
>See the "allow_user_rules" option in man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf.
>
>Either turn that on, or put custom rules only in local.cf.
Turned on allow_user_rules 1 in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf - that didn't
help.
Further reading of the docs more clos
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:42:46 -0400 Larry Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Bob Apthorpe
>
> >smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name\n
> > By sending mail to this server, you agree to abide by the terms\n
> > and conditions set forth on http://ww
be changed..
Frederic Tarasevicius
Internet Information Services, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Apthorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] user_prefs configuration
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003
At 08:21 PM 8/9/03 -0700, Vicki Brown wrote:
My local tests (defined in ~/spamassassin/user_prefs) are not being run.
These tests were run when we used SpamAssassin 2.43. Now we have upgraded to
2.55 and the tests are not being run.
Read the manpage.. this is disabled by default in 2.55 for secur
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:00
AMTo: Upwood, James; Shayne Lebrun; SpamAssassinSubject:
RE: [SAtalk] User_prefs without local users?
Hi, I had the same problem. To see wich enviroment variables are
configured I have executed an script into defaultdelivery t
Title: RE: [SAtalk] User_prefs without local users?
Hi, I had the same problem. To see wich enviroment variables are configured I have executed an script into defaultdelivery that execute the system command "env".
I have discover that this variable is ca
Message-
From: Upwood, James
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Shayne Lebrun; SpamAssassin
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] User_prefs without local users?
Great, that worked... Only problem is, it is only seeing the user
"root" in the DB. This makes me assume that I still have to ha
ED] and it
only works if I specify root as the username but not [EMAIL PROTECTED] :(
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Shayne Lebrun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:13 AM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] User_prefs without local users?
You need to run spamd w
y 29, 2003 10:50 AM
> To: Shayne Lebrun; SpamAssassin
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] User_prefs without local users?
>
>
> Great, that worked... Only problem is, it is only seeing the user
> "root" in the DB. This makes me assume that I still have to have a
> local user acco
You need to run spamd with a flag to use sql prefs; -q as I recall.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Upwood, James
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:04 AM
> To: Andreas Haase; SpamAssassin
> Subject: RE: [SAtal
: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:08 AM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] User_prefs without local users?
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Upwood, James wrote:
> All I am interested in is maintaining whitelists/blacklists - per
> user. Is this possible? It would be neat to be able to put a command
>
Great, looks like what I needed :)
Thanks,
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Andreas Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:08 AM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] User_prefs without local users?
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Upwood, James wrote:
> All I
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Upwood, James wrote:
> All I am interested in is maintaining whitelists/blacklists - per user.
> Is this possible? It would be neat to be able to put a command in like
> this into the /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file:
that's possible if you use mysql as a backend for spa
report_header 1 will put the report in the message header.
defang_mime 0 will leave the HTML alone.
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Victor O'Rear wrote:
> How can I stop, preferably at the user_prefs file, spamassassin from
> modifying the messages? My users don't mind modifying the subject line, but
> HTML
On Thursday 05 December 2002 07:46 pm, Victor O'Rear wrote:
> How can I stop, preferably at the user_prefs file, spamassassin from
> modifying the messages? My users don't mind modifying the subject
> line, but HTML mail is destroyed by the email.
defang_mime 0
report_header 1
--
Give a man a ma
Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:37 AM
> To: Mike Loiterman
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] user_prefs with spamd?
>
> * Mike Loiterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20021022 02:23]: wrote:
> > # Start daemon.
> > [ -x /usr/bin/spamd ] && /usr/bin/spamd -dac &
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:43:29PM -0700, Cheryl L. Southard wrote:
> > However, I still think that spamd should be able to setuid to the
> > user by itself. According to the man page for spamd:
> > -u username, --username=username
> > R
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:43:29PM -0700, Cheryl L. Southard wrote:
> And when I change my /etc/procmailrc file to use "spamassassin -P" instead
> of spamc, then it works fine and uses my user_prefs file. I guess
> something is strange with spamc/spamd.
The answer, I believe, is that when runni
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:43:29PM -0700, Cheryl L. Southard wrote:
> However, I still think that spamd should be able to setuid to the
> user by itself. According to the man page for spamd:
>-u username, --username=username
> Run as the named user. The alternative, default
>
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the speedy reply.
And YES, putting the line "DROPPRIVS=yes" into my /etc/procmailrc file
seems to fix the problem. So I guess this is a procmail way to fix my
problem.
However, I still think that spamd should be able to setuid to the
user by itself. According to the man
"Steve Thomas" said:
> I hope that helps, and I also hope it's right!
nice one Steve -- sounds likely to me ;)
--j.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
This is just an semi-educated guess - if I'm wrong, someone please correct
me!
Spamd setuid's to the user running spamc. Since you're calling spamc from a
global procmailrc file, it's being run as root (most likely). If called as
root, spamd won't open user_prefs files.
>From the spamc man page:
At 07/03/2002 03:51, Brandon L. Griffith wrote:
>whitelist_from "[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
>But still, it filters her emails out. Did I misread something somewhere
>or might there be another issue at hand here?
Quotes aren't needed (and probably aren't valid), and spaces are used t
Title: User_prefs location
Per
user preferences go in ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs. Site wide preferences
are typically stored in /etc/mail/spamassass/local.cf
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy
GramataSent: Thursday, April
65 matches
Mail list logo
