Re: [SAtalk] Why won't SA see my user_prefs?

At 02:00 PM 1/21/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The spam I was trying to catch doesn't seem to be going through the rules I added. What else do I have to do? I'd start off with a run of spamassassin --lint to make sure you don't have a typo. After that, if it still doesn't work check the debug ou

Re: [SAtalk] Why SPAM looks the way it does O/T

-Original Message- From: "Gerry Doris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:14:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [SAtalk] Why SPAM looks the way it does O/T > All this time I thought that there were evil minds at work finding ways > to > generate bayes busting spam...

Re: [SAtalk] why did this not get tagged with date in future?

At 01:51 PM 12/22/2003, mairhtin wrote: Can anyone tell me why this did not get tagged? It clearly states that the date is thursday jan 01. Does the date header not get checked? Mairhtin I believe that SA does not look for a date in the future relative to the current local system time, it lo

Re: [SAtalk] Why didn't this autolearn?

At 12:39 PM 12/5/2003, Chris Barnes wrote: My autolearn threshhold is the default (what is that 15?). Other accounts do autolearn, but I'm not sure why this one didn't. Ideas? Here is the report: X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=54.7 1) the autolearning score of this email isn't 54.7, and it's not 54.7 -

Re: [SAtalk] Why four scores?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:32:12PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > Googling around led me to a couple of sites that said the man page > explains the four scores, but I can't find anything. Before I start > changing scores, I'd like to understand exactly what each one is for. It's in the docs under th

RE: [SAtalk] Why Bayes is so essential

> -Original Message- > From: Dan Kohn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] Why Bayes is so essential > > > Here is a spam that should convince people to turn on Bayes. This > Nigerian spam was almost certainly

Re: [SAtalk] Why Bayes is so essential

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:14:40AM -0600, Stewart, John wrote: > > > Some time ago, there was an announcement of patches to SA to allow for > > SQL-stored Bayes databases. > > > > I haven't seen word of this being integrated in to the main > > tree since then, > > but it's possible I've missed i

RE: [SAtalk] Why Bayes is so essential

> Some time ago, there was an announcement of patches to SA to allow for > SQL-stored Bayes databases. > > I haven't seen word of this being integrated in to the main > tree since then, > but it's possible I've missed it. Hmm... I don't recall seeing this at all; does anyone have any info on t

Re: [SAtalk] Why Bayes is so essential

Thus spake Dan Kohn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20/11/03 14:35]: > Here is a spam that should convince people to turn on Bayes. This > Nigerian spam was almost certainly continually resent against > SpamAssassin 2.60. Each time, the words were altered slightly until > none of the rules fired. However,

Re: [SAtalk] why won't changing the display language work ???

Justin Mason wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > "Samuel Murez" writes: >> Matt Kettler wrote: >>> At 01:12 AM 11/18/03 +0100, Samuel Murez wrote: Hello-- Could somebody please take just a minute to tell me how to do this ? It seems very

Re: [SAtalk] why won't changing the display language work ???

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 "Samuel Murez" writes: >Matt Kettler wrote: >> At 01:12 AM 11/18/03 +0100, Samuel Murez wrote: >>> Hello-- >>> >>> Could somebody please take just a minute to tell me how to do this ? >>> >>> It seems very simple but I've tried many solutions and noth

Re: [SAtalk] why won't changing the display language work ???

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 13:55, Samuel Murez wrote: ... > > Thanks for anwering ! I was really puzzled by this. So there's no way to get > french messages for one user and english for all other users ? > > --sam ... Are you calling SA from .procmailrc? Try setting LANG=fr there. -- Jack Coates, Ly

Re: [SAtalk] why won't changing the display language work ???

Matt Kettler wrote: > At 01:12 AM 11/18/03 +0100, Samuel Murez wrote: >> Hello-- >> >> Could somebody please take just a minute to tell me how to do this ? >> >> It seems very simple but I've tried many solutions and nothing's >> working ! >> >> I would like one of my users to receive spamassassin

Re: [SAtalk] why won't changing the display language work ???

At 01:12 AM 11/18/03 +0100, Samuel Murez wrote: Hello-- Could somebody please take just a minute to tell me how to do this ? It seems very simple but I've tried many solutions and nothing's working ! I would like one of my users to receive spamassassin template messages in french, while the rest

RE: [SAtalk] Why does razor2 work with spamassassin -D but not through procmail?

I figured it out. The issue was that my procmail was using /usr/bin/spamassassin which had the razor compile-time option turned off. I needed to be using ~/bin/spamassassin. The different results were due to different executables. - dan -- Dan Kohn

Re: [SAtalk] Why does razor2 work with spamassassin -D but not through procmail?

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Dan Kohn wrote: > debug: executable for dccproc was found at /home/dankohn/bin/dccproc > > Could someone please tell me why razor triggers in the former but not > the latter? You're sure the PATH contains $HOME/bin when procmail is invoked by sendmail? --

RE: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

> -Original Message- > From: O-Zone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:40, Tom Meunier wrote: > > (I must be annoying SOMEBODY) Hi Oz, Which > > machine(s) have spamassassin? I know domini does, but does > siena also > > have spamassassin? That would cause

Re: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:40, Tom Meunier wrote: > (I must be annoying SOMEBODY) > Hi Oz, > Which machine(s) have spamassassin? I know domini does, but does siena > also have spamassassin? That would cause this behavior. Yes, also Siena have Spamassassin ! It's wrong ? Why ? :O Thanks a

RE: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

(I must be annoying SOMEBODY) Hi Oz, Which machine(s) have spamassassin? I know domini does, but does siena also have spamassassin? That would cause this behavior. -tom - headers - On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:25, you wrote: > It's difficult to see because you're not incl

RE: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

including full headers. -tom > -Original Message- > From: O-Zone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 9:39 AM > To: David B Funk > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP > !!! > > debug: running m

Re: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 03:33, David B Funk wrote: > spamassassin -D --lint > > If that looks OK, try feeding the test-spam message to spamassassin > (again as your 'spamfilter' user and with -D ). See with your eyes what i get: debug: Score set 0 chosen. debug: running in taint mode? yes

Re: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, O-Zone wrote: > Hi all, > here's my problem, AGAIN ! I've checked perms into /usr/share/spamassassin and > are all owned by spamfilter user. This is my startup command: > > /usr/bin/spamd -a -C /etc/mail/spamassassin/ -d -u spamfilter -m 10 It may still be a permissions proble

Re: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, O-Zone wrote: > Hi all, > here's my problem, AGAIN ! I've checked perms into /usr/share/spamassassin and > are all owned by spamfilter user. This is my startup command: > > /usr/bin/spamd -a -C /etc/mail/spamassassin/ -d -u spamfilter -m 10 > > and this is an header of a SPAM m

Re: [SAtalk] Why SpamAssassin STOP FILTERING SPAM !!! HELP !!!

At 04:06 PM 10/7/03 +, O-Zone wrote: Hi all, here's my problem, AGAIN ! First, run spamassassin --lint If there are any complaints about your configuration files, fix them. Minor typos can cause bad side effects. If that doesn't help.. try running a message through SA with the debug output

RE: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham?

AM To: Martin, Jeffrey Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham? On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44AM -0400, Martin, Jeffrey wrote: > But the example scored 0.4, so it still shouldn't be autolearned, > right? run with -D and read the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf d

Re: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham?

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:21:10AM -0400, Martin, Jeffrey wrote: > I just upgraded a test system to 2.6, and it is doing something strange. > The header indicates that messages are being autolearned that shouldn't > be. The auto_learn settings in /usr/share/spamassassin are: > > 10_misc.cf:auto_le

Re: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham?

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44AM -0400, Martin, Jeffrey wrote: > But the example scored 0.4, so it still shouldn't be autolearned, right? run with -D and read the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf doc, specifically the section about bayes_auto_learn. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "I develop for Linux

RE: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham?

Oops, I was on the wrong system. The real settings on this one are; 10_misc.cf:# learning system automatically, to train the Bayesian scanner. 10_misc.cf:bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 0.1 10_misc.cf:bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 12.0 10_misc.cf:# Set this to 0 to turn off aut

Re: [SAtalk] Why is P***** Enlarge score so low

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:40:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why is this test scored so low in the first place ? http://spamassassin.taint.org/faq/index.cgi?req=show&file=faq01.005.htp -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "The greatest of all faults is to be conscious of none." - Thomas Carlyl

Re: [SAtalk] Why is this microsoft_executable not detected?

At 03:18 PM 9/26/03 -0700, Ron Snyder wrote: I'm running SA 2.60-rc1, and have noticed that spamassassin is not catching microsoft executable attachments when they arrive as an enclosed bounce message. Shouldn't SA be detecting the microsoft_executable stuff since the test is done on rawbody? The t

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, BG Mahesh wrote: > Not sure if the rules we have added in local.cf are wrong. We are using SA+procmail > > header LATEST_NET_SPAM Subject =~/^Latest Net Critical Upgrade/i > describe LATEST_NET_SPAM Bounce - "Spam from Microsoft" > scoreLATEST_NET_SPAM 10.0 > > Even if t

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:27:57PM -0400, Stephen Reese elucidated: > how do I turn up the MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE? > check out your .spamassassin/user_prefs file, it has directions in there. But it is basically like: score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 6.0 or some such. Dale -

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

how do I turn up the MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Comboni Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:07 AM To: Dale Harris Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

> -Original Message- > From: BG Mahesh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ? > > > > Well they were being passed straight to the

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

> Well they were being passed straight to the user since the courier > mailfilter file was picking them out due to the size being > than 24kb > so there was no chance for SA to parse them. > hi Not sure if the rules we have added in local.cf are wrong. We are using SA+procmail header LATEST_N

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

This has seemed to work for me as well. Like you pointed out the ones that have no .exe still manage to get in. Scott On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:46, Dale Harris wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:37:27AM +1200, Simon Byrnand elucidated: > > > > Although I havn't tried it, I would say that teac

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

ent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ? Simon Byrnand wrote: >>I've been getting tons of this mail usually with virus's attached. I >>am also getting messages that seem to orginate from o

Re: [SAtalk] Why is auto-learn set to no?

At Tue Sep 23 21:45:13 2003, Renato G. Troitino wrote: > > Just curious... when a message get enought points to be a spam, it should be > set autolearn=yes right? So why all the messages gets autolearn=no even > getting 15 hits??? Learning spam as ham (or ham as spam) is really bad. If you sta

Re: [SAtalk] Why is auto-learn set to no?

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:45:13PM -0300, Renato G. Troitino wrote: > Just curious... when a message get enought points to be a spam, it should be > set autolearn=yes right? So why all the messages gets autolearn=no even > getting 15 hits??? I wish people would rtfm: Also note that a

Re: [SAtalk] Why is auto-learn set to no?

Just curious... when a message get enought points to be a spam, it should be set autolearn=yes right? So why all the messages gets autolearn=no even getting 15 hits??? Sds; Troitino > Interesting point. Perhaps instead of "autolearn=", it should read: > > autolearnt=ham/spam/no > or >

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

Simon Byrnand wrote: I've been getting tons of this mail usually with virus's attached. I am also getting messages that seem to orginate from our own server but they don't. The reason SpamAssassin doesn't catch them is twofold: Maybe I'm misinterpreting the original question, but was it no

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:49AM +0100, Daniel Bird wrote: > Maybe I'm misinterpreting the original question, but was it not the fact > that it appeared SA was not even scanning the mail? could be, I was just reading the subject which implies "why does SA not mark these mails as spam?" -- Ran

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:37:27AM +1200, Simon Byrnand elucidated: > > Although I havn't tried it, I would say that teaching the message to BAYES > using sa-learn in 2.60 should be very effective, as BAYES_99 in 2.60 has a > high enough score to tag as spam without any other tests... > That an

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

half Of Ryan Moore Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ? Is there a size limit that SA implements to avoid scanning huge messages whose content is primarily binary? I know amavisd has a limit such as th

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

Stephen Reese wrote: > h, i still don't understand why SA is not even looking at them > though see's everything else? In a nutshell, because virus messages don't look much like spam. Virus messages are usually sent via a legitimate ISP's mail server. They have (usually) valid return addresse

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

> I've been getting tons of this mail usually with virus's attached. I am > also getting messages that seem to orginate from our own server but they > don't. The reason SpamAssassin doesn't catch them is twofold: 1) It's a virus, not spam. 2) It's only just come out, after the ruleset for 2.60 wa

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

ED] Subject: RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ? I am getting nailed with these as well, 72 for the day so far. Other admins I talked here have had over 100 so far on the day. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Reese

Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 06:09:51PM -0400, Stephen Reese wrote: > h, i still don't understand why SA is not even looking at them > though see's everything else? Worms are not spam by definition. (the "people" sending the worms when you get it don't intend to send it to you, therefore it's not

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

h, i still don't understand why SA is not even looking at them though see's everything else? -Original Message- From: Daniel Kaliel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:59 PM To: Stephen Reese; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SAtalk] why is sa no

RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?

I am getting nailed with these as well, 72 for the day so far. Other admins I talked here have had over 100 so far on the day. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Reese Sent: September 23, 2003 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAta

Re: [SAtalk] Why is auto-learn set to no?

At Tue Sep 23 06:52:40 2003, Patrick Morris wrote: > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > > X-Spam-Status: > > Yes, hits=10.7 required=0.6 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, > > DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML,HTML_60_70, > > HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_FONTCOLOR_GREEN,HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, > >

Re: [SAtalk] Why is auto-learn set to no?

Robert Nicholson wrote: > RE: > > X-Spam-Status: > Yes, hits=10.7 required=0.6 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, > DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML,HTML_60_70, > HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_FONTCOLOR_GREEN,HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, > HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,MISSING_

Re: [SAtalk] Why is auto-learn set to no?

It seems i didn't appreciate that autolearn in that line relates to how that particular message was autolearnt. So things are working as I expect them to. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgee

Re: [SAtalk] why it pass SA

> You also didn't say what version of SA, or anything about your setup (bayes > enabled? awl enabled? is razor installed?, etc). Including some > configuration information, at least a version, is helpful when asking this > kind of question. quite honest i am running a default installation of

Re: [SAtalk] why it pass SA

At 06:34 PM 9/21/03 -0400, landy wrote: any idea why this pass thru SA Well, first, that message is not spam, it's a virus. It's the result of a newer mail worm/virus called the swen worm. SpamAssassin sometimes tags viruses, but that's not it's job in life. It's job is to identify spam and take

Re: [SAtalk] why are scores so high?

- Original Message - From: "SpamAssassin Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ian D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] why are scores so high? > Ian D. wrote: > > >We

Re: [SAtalk] why are scores so high?

Ian D. wrote: We have had some legitimate mail messages that scored higher than anticipated, and it appears that the following tests are the biggest contributors: score BASE64_ENC_TEXT 2.354 1.643 1.544 1.768 score MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET 0.638 0.759 0.365 0.0 Is base64-encoded text really such a t

Re: [SAtalk] why so low

At 06:31 AM 9/4/2003 -0400, landy wrote: i have been getting many of these and even after doing sa-learn the score is super low, these emails are really pissing me of Are you *SURE* those aren't a GENUINE email related to your real ebay account? The fact that the message matches GENUINE_EBAY_RCVD

Re: [SAtalk] why so low

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:31:09AM -0400, landy wrote: > i have been getting many of these > and even after doing sa-learn the score is super low, > these emails are really pissing me of > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; cha

RE: [SAtalk] why so low

http://useast.spamassassin.org/tests.html You've got negative scores all over that thing. Add them up. > -Original Message- > From: landy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 5:31 AM > To: SA > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] why so low > > i have

RE: [SAtalk] Why tagged as spam when HITS < REQUIRED ??

Hmm, turns out that I'm getting admin messages about these, but they're not actually stopped. Looks like $sa_tag2_level_deflt and $sa_kill_level_deflt in amavisd.conf were the root cause. I've set them to match the sa setting in local.cf and will see how that runs... - steve

Re: [SAtalk] Why tagged as spam when HITS < REQUIRED ??

At 09:47 AM 9/4/03 +1200, Steve Brorens wrote: On my experimantal 'gateway' configuration (Postfix/Amavisd-new/SA) I see a few instances where msgs get classified as spam tho the report shows the hits DO NOT exceed the required: ---snip form the report--- Content ana

Re: [SAtalk] Why tagged as spam when HITS < REQUIRED ??

--On Thursday, September 04, 2003 9:47 AM +1200 Steve Brorens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On my experimantal 'gateway' configuration (Postfix/Amavisd-new/SA) I > see a few instances where msgs get classified as spam tho the report > shows the hits DO NOT exceed the required: > > ---

Re: [SAtalk] Why are there 4 scores?

> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:48:44 -0400 Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> How do I find out which one my system has? This is a UNIX network. > > You'd have to look at the SA docs or in the score sets; I'm not sure > which ones SA uses out-of-the-box. I prefer the open proxy lists, dialu

Re: [SAtalk] Why are there 4 scores?

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:48:44 -0400 Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope. 'net' means with DNSBL checks. 'local' means no DNSBL lookups. > > Huh? What is a DNSBL? DNS-based blacklist - see http://openrbl.org and http://www.declude.com/junkmail/support/ip4r.htm for more info. > How

Re: [SAtalk] Why are there 4 scores?

> Nope. 'net' means with DNSBL checks. 'local' means no DNSBL lookups. Huh? What is a DNSBL? How do I find out which one my system has? This is a UNIX network. -- Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88 Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.htm

Re: [SAtalk] Why are there 4 scores?

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:56:40 -0400 Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I think I sort of understand why rules have 4 numbers. But I was hoping > that someone could confirm this. From the SA website, I learn that there > are 4 scores I can attribute to each rule: >local,

Re: [SAtalk] Why wil "sa-learn" not learn?

At 20:30 13/07/03 -0700, Chris Petersen wrote: > Whatever I do, sa-learn will not accept it as spam. :( It takes about 500-1000 learned spams before SA starts marking things with the bayes filter. I've put at least that many in, and still only about half of my spams have bayes markings in them (a

Re: [SAtalk] Why wil "sa-learn" not learn?

> Whatever I do, sa-learn will not accept it as spam. :( It takes about 500-1000 learned spams before SA starts marking things with the bayes filter. I've put at least that many in, and still only about half of my spams have bayes markings in them (and about 10% of my daily spam still gets throug

Re: [SAtalk] Why wil "sa-learn" not learn?

- Original Message - From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Why wil "sa-learn" not learn? > On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:

Re: [SAtalk] Why wil "sa-learn" not learn?

On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:27:54PM +, Mark wrote: > asarian-host: {root} % /usr/local/sa/bin/sa-learn --spam --mbox -D < > /temp/spam Ah. Get rid of that '<'. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Jab, Jab, Oooh. O(n log n)! Ha! Tail recursion! Thrust! Parry! " - Jim Flanagan pgp0.

Re: [SAtalk] Why wil "sa-learn" not learn?

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:38:53PM +, Mark wrote: > > > What does it mean, "Learned from 0 messages"?? Should not > > sa-learn learn from EVERY message you specifically tell it > > to be spam? > > Not if you've already learned it as spam. The mail had slipped through, so was not marked as sp

Re: [SAtalk] Why wil "sa-learn" not learn?

On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:38:53PM +, Mark wrote: > What does it mean, "Learned from 0 messages"?? Should not sa-learn learn > from EVERY message you specifically tell it to be spam? Not if you've already learned it as spam. a full -D would tell you. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Zebras,

Re: [SAtalk] Why are local users getting marked as spam?

Ian Zabel wrote: Where should I start looking to make sure that any emails sent FROM my mail server are not marked as spam? (All users must use SMTP AUTH, so I'm not worried about relaying) I only started using Postfix (2.0.12) recently after many years of Exim. I've configured it such, that it u

Re: [SAtalk] Why are local users getting marked as spam?

Ian Zabel wrote on Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:09:50 -0400: > I see no > reason for this to be marked as spam. Sure there is. Just look at the hits. They may be not valid (at least the FORGED_MUA_EUDORA isn't, you could bug it), but it's quite clear why it got tagged as spam. > > Where should I start

Re: [SAtalk] Why did this spam go through?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Abigail, Tuesday, July 1, 2003, 9:51:24 PM, you wrote: AM> This spam had a 0 score, SA 2.54... wondering how it got AM> through - it is full of lots of words about weight loss and AM> all caps words like GUARANTEED, FREE - no HTML though, just

Re: [SAtalk] Why did this spam go through?

On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:51:24PM -0700, Abigail Marshall wrote: > Subject: Why are so many people losing weight on Atkins? > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 > tests=none > version=2.54 > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.54 (1.174.2.17-2003-05-11-exp

Re: [SAtalk] Why did this spam go through?

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 07:51:00AM +0300, Abigail Marshall wrote: > This spam had a 0 score, SA 2.54... wondering how it got > through - it is full of lots of words about weight loss and > all caps words like GUARANTEED, FREE - no HTML though, just > plain text: Sneaky spam. Start using bayes or

Re: [SAtalk] why not use SA on this SA list?

I run SA to this list and I have no problems. On Понедельник, 30 Июнь 2003 14:10, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Isn't this list the last place one expects to find spam? > > ScanMail Message: To Recipient virus found and action taken. > System Attendant: > Mail Adminstrator :Blocked File Attachment >

Re: [SAtalk] why not use SA on this SA list?

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 03:10:10PM +0800, Dan Jacobson is rumored to have said: > > Wait, I don't see any spamassassin headers on the articles in this > group. That's right - SF doesn't use it. > Idea: why don't you use the famed SpamAssassin spam defense system to > reduce spam on this list? B

Re: [SAtalk] why not use SA on this SA list?

> Wait, I don't see any spamassassin headers on the articles in this > group. Wait, I think this list is run on something called ``SourceForge.net'' and happens to be an ``open'' list. > Idea: why don't you use the famed SpamAssassin spam defense system to > reduce spam on this list? Bet nobody

Re: [SAtalk] why not use SA on this SA list?

--On Monday, June 30, 2003 3:10 PM +0800 Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Isn't this list the last place one expects to find spam? Idea: why don't you use the famed SpamAssassin spam defense system to reduce spam on this list? Bet nobody ever thought about that. All you gots to do is cra

Re: [SAtalk] why not use SA on this SA list?

At Mon Jun 30 08:10:10 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Idea: why don't you use the famed SpamAssassin spam defense system to > reduce spam on this list? Bet nobody ever thought about that. > > All you gots to do is crank the threshold really low, like 2. Most of > us will still pass. And if we don'

Re: [SAtalk] why is this not caught?

At 09:29 AM 6/30/2003 +0200, Martin Maechler wrote: Look at the message I've saved in ftp://stat.ethz.ch/U/maechler/spam-mail/please 1) why there's no check on the obvious spam subject Subject: PLEASE READ! Important Support Information and FAQs 2) I give small positive scores to the LINES

Re: [SAtalk] Why was this marked as SPAM?

Alan M Stanier wrote on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:02:36 +0100: > The header shows precisely what tests were triggered. > I'm sorry, but I can't see any. (score=25.2, required 5, AWL) surely is not the list of tests triggered, I guess? If it is I'd suggest MailScanner isn't putting all tests there, I

Re: [SAtalk] Why was this marked as SPAM?

Alan M Stanier wrote on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:22:59 +0100: > Can anyone suggest what might be going on? > Without any knowledge of the tests triggered: no. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http:

Re: [SAtalk] Why was this marked as SPAM?

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 11:22:00AM +0300, Stanier, Alan M wrote: > I sent myself a number of innocuous test messages, each > containing just the text > > 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 > > Ones from my hotmail account were marked as SPAM. The full > header set of one such is below. ... > X-MailScanner-SpamCh

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

At 21:07 15/06/03 -0700, Ed Kasky wrote: At 03:25 PM Monday, 6/16/2003, Simon Byrnand wrote -=> What happens without -H is that when spamd does a setuid() to another user (other than root) the environment variable $HOME which is passed to helper apps like razor is still pointing to root's home di

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

At 03:25 PM Monday, 6/16/2003, Simon Byrnand wrote -=> What happens without -H is that when spamd does a setuid() to another user (other than root) the environment variable $HOME which is passed to helper apps like razor is still pointing to root's home directory. Of course razor can't save its

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

At 20:19 15/06/03 -0700, Ed Kasky wrote: At 08:19 AM Monday, 6/16/2003, Simon Byrnand wrote -=> > Does anyone have any ideas as to why it would take 3 seconds to do the > following: > > Jun 14 07:28:29 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: entering helper-app run mode > Jun 14 07:28:32 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

At 08:19 AM Monday, 6/16/2003, Simon Byrnand wrote -=> > Does anyone have any ideas as to why it would take 3 seconds to do the > following: > > Jun 14 07:28:29 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: entering helper-app run mode > Jun 14 07:28:32 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: Using results from Razor v2.34 > > If I

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

> Does anyone have any ideas as to why it would take 3 seconds to do the > following: > > Jun 14 07:28:29 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: entering helper-app run mode > Jun 14 07:28:32 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: Using results from Razor v2.34 > > If I turn Razor2 off, I get times of .5 to 1.5 seconds. Oth

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

At 12:15 PM Sunday, 6/15/2003, Theo Van Dinter wrote -=> > Jun 14 07:28:29 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: entering helper-app run mode > Jun 14 07:28:32 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: Using results from Razor v2.34 > > Could this be related to cpu speed or dns or my setup? "entering" happens when Razor is ab

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 09:37:46AM -0700, Ed Kasky wrote: > Would it help do you think if I put the discovery server entries in the > hosts file? No. The debug lines showed that the 3 seconds was the amount of time the razor server took to respond with the razor servers you should use. Name look

Re: [SAtalk] Why does "helper-app run mode" take 3 seconds

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:28:49AM -0700, Ed Kasky wrote: > Does anyone have any ideas as to why it would take 3 seconds to do the > following: > > Jun 14 07:28:29 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: entering helper-app run mode > Jun 14 07:28:32 yoda2 spamd[1289]: debug: Using results from Razor v2.34 >

Re: [SAtalk] Why keep caughtspam?

Jim Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've got procmail putting spam identified by SA into a caughtspam > mailbox. Apart from checking it to see if ham has slipped into it, or > mabye to notify Razor of spam that hasn't been tagged as Razor'ed, is > there any reason why I should keep it for long

Re: [SAtalk] Why keep caughtspam?

On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 04:47:21PM +0100, Yorkshire Dave wrote: > Don't just throw it away, dump it in news.admin.net-abuse.sightings, It > might be useful to someone. Thanks - looks like a good idea. I use slrn as a newsreader - offhand, any idea how I could dump a whole mailbox into news.admin.

Re: [SAtalk] Why keep caughtspam?

On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 16:05, Jim Ford wrote: > Hi, > > I've got procmail putting spam identified by SA into a caughtspam mailbox. > Apart from checking it to see if ham has slipped into it, or mabye to notify > Razor of spam that hasn't been tagged as Razor'ed, is there any reason > why I should k

RE: [SAtalk] Why keep caughtspam?

The trick we use here for users who don't want their spam is to pipe it, via a maildrop script, into the Trash folder of their account on our IMAP server. Benefits: 1: They can check it via web mail, or via their client if they're IMAP4 users. 2: It gets autodeleted from the Trash folder after a w

Re: [SAtalk] Why is this lists Reply-To: Header set to the wrong address?

Aaron wrote: > When I reply, it goes to the "from" address, which is the person who > sent it. I have to type in the list address by hand (I know... How > sad is that?) I use Outlook 2003 beta ... Since Outlook is missing list reply functionality you might find it easier to do a group followup t

  1   2   >