On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :)
How about "SpamAssassin: Reduce your spam by 581%"?
ttyl
srw
--
Walde TechnologyNetworks, Internet, Intranets
Saskatoon, SK CANADA Linux Support, Web Programming
Hello,
Would it be possible to add an option to spamc, for example -r,
which would set/overwrite the required score (defaults 5.0) to
make a mail defined as spam?
I'd like to call spamc from a program which already know this
information, and would not like to create an unix user per
mailbox o
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 23:42, Charlie Watts wrote:
> Envelope recipients are nice ... a portable way to get the envelope
> recipient into spamd would be -great-, because we could include a
> "recipient not listed in To/Cc" rule. (Though that poses scoring
> issues...)
Getting the envelope recipien
FYI, my babies are spoken for.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 00:07, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
>
> > Ok folks, I just made get_header in NoMailAudit case-insensitive,
> > meaning that while capitalization of header names is preserved, rules
> > will match case insensiti
Actually, there was an error in the math in that 581% claim. It should
read 580.2% -- somehow it got rounded up instead of down.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 00:14, Scott Walde wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
>
> > Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :)
>
>
Probably the best way would be to use sql, or write another
implementation of the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf class which reads the
data from wherever it is you store it.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 00:42, Olivier M. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would it be possible to add an option to spamc, for example -r,
>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:01:30AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Probably the best way would be to use sql, or write another
well, using sql is exactely the thing I'd like to avoid... :)
Olivier
--
_
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> Here's a couple rules I wrote to help catch stuff that was making it
> through. The scores are my own made-up numbers
>
> body INCREASE_EJACULATION /increase ejaculation/i
> describe INCREASE_EJACULATION Why would I want to do that?
That sh
Consider it a platonic sort of love. :-)
On 7 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> FYI, my babies are spoken for.
>
> C
>
> On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 00:07, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > On 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> >
> > > Ok folks, I just made get_header in NoMailAudit case-insensitive,
> > > meanin
> -Original Message-
> From: Charlie Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 February 2002 23:42
> To: Craig Hughes
> Cc: Uwe Willenbacher; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd log messages...
>
> Envelope recipients are nice ... a portable way to get the envelope
> recip
I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
idea to shoot by everybody.
If I'm reading the PORN_3 rule correctly, you must have three of the
listed strings within 15 characters of each other, and this scores .7
if caught.
Two things seem strange about this. First, how o
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
| I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
| idea to shoot by everybody.
|
| If I'm reading the PORN_3 rule correctly,
I had set all the PORN_* rules to 10.0 in my config. I kept getting a
significant nu
I just received a piece of spam that slipped through because of the
whitelist.
Pertinent info:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-94.1 required=5.0
tests=NO_REAL_NAME,DEAR_SOMEBODY,
LINE_OF_YELLING,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.1
Since the default whitelist
> spamassassin scanning happening on a machine on my internal network
> having been relayed in from the outside the envelope recipient will look
> like [EMAIL PROTECTED] where tags is a representation of the
> original envelope recipient local and domain parts.
I had written a patch for SA1.5 and
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
> | I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
> | idea to shoot by everybody.
> |
> | If I'm reading the PORN_3 rule correctly,
>
> I had set all the PORN_* rules to 10
I can't set the score for the INVALID_MSGID test to zero; it's stuck at 0.2.
I've checked and rechecked the spelling in my config file and it's just not
taking the score. :-(
Also I have found that the FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS test isn't right at all; It's a
high-scoring test but it seems to trig
I was actually thinking of removing the 3-in-a-line restriction, but
splitting the rule in to at least 2 pieces: naughty words, and definite
signs of porn spam. "fuck" falls in the former category, "cum" in the
latter. I'll basically check each words' frequency in the corpus and
separate the wor
Yeah, I thought of this while I was working on those rules yesterday,
but I said "well what are the odds" and left it :)
I'll fix it now.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 09:14, James Golovich wrote:
> I just received a piece of spam that slipped through because of the
> whitelist.
>
> Pertinent info:
Frickin' microsoft, breaking all our perfectly good spam identification
rules >s
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:47, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> I can't set the score for the INVALID_MSGID test to zero; it's stuck at 0.2.
> I've checked and rechecked the spelling in my config file and it's just not
Hmm, I just ran a test run with the so-far-accumulated new nonspam
corpus and the spam corpus, and PORN_3 comes out with a negative score.
So clearly the rule needs work.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:48, James Golovich wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at
How can I be sure that my SpamAssassin works ?
I've installed Qmail-scanner 1.10 and it detects my spamd... But after
?
--
Cordialement,
Cedric mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sincever.com : Actu Music Only
___
Spa
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 08:53:47PM +0100, Cedric Fontaine wrote:
| How can I be sure that my SpamAssassin works ?
Take a bunch of mail that you have, some spam and some not. Run it
through SA and see if it correctly tags the messages.
-D
--
Dishonest money dwindles away,
but he who gathers m
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:48:46PM -0500, James Golovich wrote:
| On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
| > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
| > | I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
| > | idea to shoot by everybody.
| > |
| > | If I'm rea
> How can I be sure that my SpamAssassin works ?
>
> I've installed Qmail-scanner 1.10 and it detects my spamd... But after
> ?
Check your email headers for the X-Spam-Flag header.
If you dont see it, make sure you have set QMAILQUEUE enviroment variable
when you invoke qmail-smtpd.
# QMAILQUEUE
If we are going to continue to have a default whitelist that comes with
spamassassin, it might be worthwhile to have *@reports.spamcop.net to it
Before I had procmail filtering those seperately every spamcop message was
getting flagged by spamassassin since they have many spammy
characteristics (
Anyone think this a useful feature?
Taking what exim returns instead of actually doing the rbl tests?
- Forwarded message from Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: daf-rogers@localhost
Delivery-date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:17:32 -0500
Subject: Bug#132733: X-RBL-Warning
Reply-To: J
Depends. Does Exim actually process all the Received lines, or does it
just test the connecting host?
Trouble is that SA has some flexibility I think Exim doesn't have - the
ability to tag message differently based on the contents of the DNS reply,
not just the existence of one.
But indeed - doi
I think some criteria for getting on the default whitelist are:
* Lots of people get mail from there. Not just people on this mailing
list, but many of the ~500,000 users we have out there whose ISPs or
companies have this implemented system-wide
* The thing in the whitelist is an entity that sp
It can't hurt to add the rule. Then people using RBL checks in exim can
turn off the rbl checks in SA and automatically get the benefit of the
rule w/out having to compose their own rule. I guess the only possible
problem is where people don't turn off SA RBL checking and so messages
get a doubl
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:46:31PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> It can't hurt to add the rule. Then people using RBL checks in exim can
> turn off the rbl checks in SA and automatically get the benefit of the
> rule w/out having to compose their own rule. I guess the only possible
> problem is w
If I recall well, when sendmail is configured for RBL it wil test the
envellope and simply refuses the email. So what is passed to SA has been accepted on
the envellope.
But the envellope does not mean the headers are correct, so it is
worth SA check the headers too.
Olivier
> > It can't hurt
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 06:20:59PM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
| Depends. Does Exim actually process all the Received lines, or does it
| just test the connecting host?
Just the connecting host, I believe.
To answer Olivier's comment, exim can be configured to "warn",
"reject", "skiprelay", or "
32 matches
Mail list logo
