CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>I am very pleased with SA and the job it is doing. Good job to all!
>
>But...In my situation if SA makes a false positive it is often on mailing
>list type emails. Perhaps a user has suscribed to a joke of the day or some
>hobby list, etc... Has anyone deve
On 18 March 2002, Ed Kasky said:
> I am in the process of learning regex and have a question if someone has a
> minute
>
> Based on the following headers, is this the correct addition to
> 20_head_tests.cf?
>
> header UNDISC_RECIPTo =~ /^Undisclosed-Recipient*:\s*;$/
> describe
On 18 March 2002, Nick Fisher said:
> 1) SA Doesn't work Win32
> Line 649 of SpamAssassin.pm (2.11) has getpwuid on it. This appears to be
> getting the user's home directory but I don't know why. I've hacked it to
> return something but I'd love to know why it's doing this so I can write a
> prop
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:38:52PM -0700, Kerry Nice wrote:
| I saw in the Lockergnome newsletter I received today, Spamassassin was
| slammed big time. I do see his point though. Does SA really do that
| great of a job with newsletters and journals?
...
| Is this just the journals I read or
Kerry,
Could you try adding the tests that Matthew recently posted specifically for
lists? Would be interesting to see how or if these change your results.
Here they are:
Here's some rules that I have for lists:
# Only look for 7 bit chars between square brackets, because a lot
# of spam with 8
The beginning of my ~/.procmailrc file has:
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail # You'd better make sure it exists
so a rule like:
:0:
* ^From:.*cnn.com
journals
will go to
/home/nice/mail/journals
If you don't have the MAILDIR variable or if that directory doesn't
exist, I have no idea what happens, if y
> Is this just the journals I read or does this seem like a really big
> problem to others? I know these can be whitelisted (and in my case,
> procmail takes care of them), but if an ISP, for example, is going to
> use SA, lots of people are going to get legitmate mail filtered and will
> have to
I am an ISP using SA for my customers. I have set the default SA threshold
to 7. I have also setup a bi-weekly report notifying my customers of how
many Spam messages they have accumulated. No Spam messages are deleted
unless they are older than 30 days. They can then go to our Webmail service
ok, so I added "-u mail" for spamd's startup and now have this in my
main log:
Mar 19 10:20:27 bacon spamd[22447]: connection from localhost [
127.0.0.1 ] at port 44544
Mar 19 10:20:27 bacon spamd[22490]: Creating default_prefs
[/root/.spamassassin/user_prefs]
Mar 19 10:20:27 bacon spamd[22490
I sporadically get multipart/alternative email where the first (text)
part consists only of a one- or two-sentence warning that the content
"can only be viewed in HTML." I have never seen a non-spam message that
matches this description.
body VIEWED_ONLY_IN_HTML/This \w+ can only be \w+
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 07:39:32AM -0700, Kerry Nice wrote:
> If you don't have the MAILDIR variable or if that directory doesn't
> exist, I have no idea what happens, if you do, it should go to:
>
> $MAILDIR/caughtspam
According to the procmailrc man page, MAILDIR defaults to $HOME, which is (
I am having some trouble with spam assassin. I set it up, I have spamd
running. I edited my promailrc file to call spamc. Whenever an email gets
sent wether it is a real email or a spam, spam assassin is chocking on it
while it starts 2 procmail processes and one spamc process. The processes
j
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
> Here is what top shows once the email has been sent
> 1631 root 0 0 6424 6424 1196 T 0 0.0 5.0 0:01 spamd
^^^
spamd has received a SIGSTOP (or perhaps SIGTSTP) and the kernel is
waiting for a SIGC
on 3/19/02 10:06 AM, Bart Schaefer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
>
>> Here is what top shows once the email has been sent
>> 1631 root 0 0 6424 6424 1196 T 0 0.0 5.0 0:01 spamd
> ^^^
> spamd has recei
Well there you go! An real-life example of the best of both worlds. :)
Sounds like a great set-up; are you filtering all mail through procmail
first -> spamassassin?
I'm curious as to what ISPs would use for that purpose...
Kenneth
---
Kenneth Chen
Unit Supervi
I'm starting to see spams with claimed copyright; I attach an example
written in Big5 that would have gone through, but for the fact that I
have CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADERS set to a score of 5. The copyright claim
score is too negative, and the CHARSET_FARAWAY_BODY didn't trigger on
the BIG5 MIME
I'm noticing some spam which is text/html but does not have the
tags.
Anybody else seeing this?
--
Charlie Watts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Rob McMillin wrote:
> I'm starting to see spams with claimed copyright; I attach an example
> written in Big5 that would have gone through, but for the fact that I
> have CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADERS set to a score of 5. The copyright claim
> score is too negative, and the CHARSET_FARAWAY_BODY didn
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> The most recent example also included in the HTML part a "click here" link
> which for some reason did not trigger the CLICK_HERE_LINK rule. Could
> this be because the HTML part had "Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary"?
Stepping through with "perl -d
ok, I tried setting /root/.spamassassin/* including subdirs as rw by ALL
and setting thier group membership to 'mail' (same as my mail user who
spamd is running as) still get:
Mar 19 11:56:08 bacon spamd[22447]: connection from localhost [
127.0.0.1 ] at port 45093
Mar 19 11:56:08 bacon spamd[
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:38:50AM -0800, Kenneth Chen wrote:
> Well there you go! An real-life example of the best of both worlds. :)
> Sounds like a great set-up; are you filtering all mail through procmail
> first -> spamassassin?
>
> I'm curious as to what ISPs would use for that purpose...
No. I use SA integrated into qmail-scanner then use maildrop (procmail was
too scary!) during delivery (But you could very easily have spamc run in the
maildrop mailfilter instead of qmail-scanner).
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> SA should apply body tests to any text parts within a multipart/related.
I just looked at the source of PerMsgStatus.pm for the first time ...
It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
Any nested multipart containing
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
> Any nested multipart containing a base64'd sub-part can totally defeat all
> body checks, and even if there's only one level of multipart the base64
> dec
Why does the spamd have to access a dir on /root? Wouldn't it make more
sense (and be more secure) to have it access (for example)
/usr/share/spamassassin/default_prefs or something?
Ed Kasky wrote:
> Is the path navigable by the group "mail". ie: both /root and
> /root/.spamassassin/ as wel
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
>
> It's a problem here too; I have kmail put lists in the appropriate
> folders and don't filter on SPAM until all of that is done.
if you're filtering your lists anyway, it's much more efficient to use
procmail / maildrop to filter your moderated lists *first*
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> Could you try adding the tests that Matthew recently posted specifically for
> lists? Would be interesting to see how or if these change your results.
> Here they are:
of course this only helps with lists that use an MLM which supports
these headers.
also,
requiers a 'reporting address' to send the spam to ... which, from what
I've been able to tell, prevents it from being delivered to the original
recipient if marked as spam ...
am I missing something? I want the email to be sent to the recipient, I
just want them to know that it is spam, or, at
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:10:08AM -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
| On 18 March 2002, Ed Kasky said:
| > I am in the process of learning regex and have a question if someone has a
| > minute
| >
| > Based on the following headers, is this the correct addition to
| > 20_head_tests.cf?
| >
| > head
Hi,
Somewhere it should say
my $status = $spamtest->check($mail);
if ($status->is_spam ()) {
$status->rewrite_mail ();
$message = join ("",$mail->header(),@{$mail->body()});
@recipients = ("$spamaddr");
$recips = \@recipients;
} else {
$
On Monday 18 March 2002 07:38 pm, Kerry Nice wrote:
> I saw in the Lockergnome newsletter I received today, Spamassassin was
> slammed big time. I do see his point though. Does SA really do that
> great of a job with newsletters and journals?
We could take out the rules that get triggered ofte
I've occasioanlly gotten spam with a subject that looks like this:
>> Subject: !Beautiful, Custom Websites - $399 Complete!
>> (7217vPhZ0-478TLdy5829qicU9-0@26)
>> Subject: Custom Websites for $399 Complete! (or yours re-designed)
>>(2539OiAs5-871MeWq8@17)
The current check_for_unique_subject_i
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 01:34, Charlie Watts wrote:
> I've been using the AWL with no problems for a little over a week now. I
> just wanted to mention this in reply to my earlier "it's broken" message.
> I dunno what the problem was before. I don't think it was one.
>
> My AWL database is rapidly
On 19 March 2002, dman said:
> A simpler approach :
>
> If you're using exim 3 put
> headers_check_syntax = true
> in your config file.
>
> If you're using exim 4 put
> require verify = header_syntax
> in the acl_smtp_data ACL.
Yes, those can both be useful. I've been using headers_ch
Unlikely to be much of an issue for personal use. I imagine Charlie has
*lots* of users sharing a single sitewide AWL DB.
C
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 07:28, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > My AWL database is rapidly getting big. It's up to 23MB and growing.
>
I got spamd running as root, I have spamc being called in procmail. No
email is being tagged, I get these errors in my maillog
Mar 19 14:08:16 www spamd[12541]: connection from localhost [ 127.0.0.1 ] at
port 4346
Mar 19 14:08:16 www spamd[13624]: Still running as root: user not specified,
not
Oh, 62. I thought you were talking about 47.
C
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 22:41, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
> >Rob McMillin wrote:
> >
> >>1) Pick up the current CVS tree and set up a short-circuit rule that
> >>allows multiple tests.
> >>
> >
> >Wow! Did someone implement that
if you use the -u option on spamd when you start it you can specify the
username it will run as. By default, it runs a root and does a setuid()
call to the user who invokes spamc. I use Red Hat and the init script
that comes with spamd to start it. I just added "-u mail" (mail is me
sendmai
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 06:15, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 18 March 2002, Nick Fisher said:
> > 1) SA Doesn't work Win32
> > Line 649 of SpamAssassin.pm (2.11) has getpwuid on it. This appears to be
> > getting the user's home directory but I don't know why. I've hacked it to
> > return something but I'd
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 06:22, dman wrote:
> Just for elightenment, take a look at the newsletters again. Do they
> sound at all similar to spam messages you've seen? SA is only a text
> processor, not an actual human, so it can only do so much. There are
> some legitimate mails that are so simil
I just added a patch and some comments to bugzilla bug #83
(http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83).
This is the bug for spamassassin not decoding base64 encoded headers before
parsing the message. I also fixed some other bugs relating to header
decoding.
If this affects you, pleas
On 19 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 01:34, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > I've been using the AWL with no problems for a little over a week now. I
> > just wanted to mention this in reply to my earlier "it's broken" message.
> > I dunno what the problem was before. I don't think
> > 1) SA Doesn't work Win32
> > Line 649 of SpamAssassin.pm (2.11) has getpwuid on it. This
> appears to be
> > getting the user's home directory but I don't know why. I've
> hacked it to
> > return something but I'd love to know why it's doing this so I
> can write a
> > propper patch. Once that
> Good to see that someone is working on this. I expect we'll have some
> help from a commercial company too in the next few weeks/months on
> assisting with making windows stuff work better here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Well thanks... basicly what your saying is that I
should have just sat back and
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
> Any nested multipart containing a base64'd sub-part can totally defeat all
> body checks, and even if there's only one level of multipart the base64
> dec
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
> > Any nested multipart containing a base64'd sub-part can totally defeat all
> > body checks, and even if t
If I want spamd to run as root do I still have to put -u root in the
startup? My sendmail already runs as root so having spamd run as root is
fine for me.
Why am I getting the errors;
Still running as root: user not specified, not found, or set to root. Fall
back to nobody.
And why does the pr
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:45:40PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> This looks like it fixes the base64 decoder, but it remains the case that
> a MIME structure of the form
>
> mutipart/anything
> multipart/anything
> text/anything
> anything/anything c-t-e:base64
>
> will cause get_decoded_bo
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
> Why am I getting the errors;
> Still running as root: user not specified, not found, or set to root. Fall
> back to nobody.
>
> And why does the procmail log say
> procmail: Skipped "/home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules"
Both of these indicate that you hav
First step towards being on top of the bug list is being on the buglist
at all -- and the first step towards being on the buglist is for the
person who identifies a bug to enter it on the buglist.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/
C
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 10:03, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Tue, 19
Hopefully, someone can tell me to go read a specific FAQ or something,
but I have nothing that will help me get qmail to work with spam
assassin.
I need spamassassin to deliver mail to $HOME/Maildir (in a Maildir
format, not mbox), and deliver it to /var/spool/mail/USER.
What am I missing?
--
It does access /usr/share/spamassassin stuff. The error messages about
it trying to do stuff in /root on startup occur when it tries to
precompile its regexes -- you can basically ignore them in the startup
stuff. If you see errors further on in spamd logs then you might have
an actual problem.
Don't worry, not going into SA core (at least not enabled by default --
might be in a "contrib" directory or something)
C
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 10:15, Will Yardley wrote:
> CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>
> > Could you try adding the tests that Matthew recently posted specifically for
> >
on 3/19/02 4:14 PM, Bart Schaefer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
>
>> Why am I getting the errors;
>> Still running as root: user not specified, not found, or set to root. Fall
>> back to nobody.
>>
>> And why does the procmail log say
>> procmail: Skipped
Excellent, thanks. That fixes bugzilla #80
C
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 10:22, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> In looking through SpamAssassin.pm, I found that it's already using the
> Config module and rewriting all the default path arrays with a function
> called sed_path().
>
> So the attached trivial pa
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 04:29:00PM -0600, AHA Lists wrote:
> :0fw
> | spamc
> /home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules
What are you trying to do? If spamc returns "it's spam", save to the rules
file?
Try something like:
:0fw
| spamc -f
:0e
EXITCODE=$?
:0
* ^X-Spam-Flag: YES
/home/Mail-SpamAssassin
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime parts?
Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spama
On 19 Mar 2002 at 14:19, Craig Hughes wrote:
> First step towards being on top of the bug list is being on the buglist
> at all -- and the first step towards being on the buglist is for the
> person who identifies a bug to enter it on the buglist.
>
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/
>
> C
>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
> Here is what I have in my procmailrc file, what is the syntax error?
>
> :0fw
> | spamc
> /home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules
What is "/home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules" doing there on a line by
itself? That's the syntax error. What is it that you inten
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:32:34PM -0700, Nels Lindquist wrote:
> I posted a couple of messages about problems with base64 encoding
> back in January and didn't get a single reply, not even a pointer to
> the buglist.
I just fixed some of this (at least the first part, and probably the second
t
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:22:22PM -0800, Byrne Reese wrote:
| Hopefully, someone can tell me to go read a specific FAQ or something,
| but I have nothing that will help me get qmail to work with spam
| assassin.
|
| I need spamassassin to deliver mail to $HOME/Maildir (in a Maildir
| format, not
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:57:30PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
| On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 06:22, dman wrote:
| > Just for elightenment, take a look at the newsletters again. Do they
| > sound at all similar to spam messages you've seen? SA is only a text
| > processor, not an actual human, so it can
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:34:23PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
|
| > I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime parts?
|
| Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
Does perl not have an existing (stable) library to do all of the dirty
work
I think this is a more substantial problem than that which requires a
bit more work. Thanks for the patch though. I've made a note in
bugzilla #115 about my intention to incorporate MIME::Tools for doing a
lot of the hard work for us. We should be able to easily knock out
several bugs by doing
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 14:29, AHA Lists wrote:
>
> Here is what I have in my procmailrc file, what is the syntax error?
>
> :0fw
> | spamc
> /home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules
I'm guessing that the rules file is supposed to be an argument to spamc
of a file that contains your custom rules, you h
I should clarify. I DON'T want it delivered to /var/spool... sorry - a
typo on my part.
There are no clear instructions on what files I need to edit to get it
to work as a filter.
Let me elaborate... my .qmail file once contained only the following:
> ./Maildir/
Indicating that mail for me was
Hi,
I could be wrong but I think you need a delivery program like maildrop or
safecat to complete the delivery.
Something like
| /usr/bin/spamc -f | safecat ./Maildir/tmp ./Maildir/new
Are you using vpopmail or vmailmgr? If so I have scripts for both of those.
Regards,
Rick
- Original
Procmail:
# remove egroups advertisements
:0 fw
* ^User-Agent:.*eGroups-EW
| sed -e '/begin egp html banner/,/end egp html banner/d'
- Original Message -
From: "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SA's performance
I am trying to get SA to recognize a different mailspool. I thought I
would do that using the MAIL environment variable.
So my .qmail file looks like:
> |MAIL=/home/reese/Maildir; export; /usr/bin/spamassassin -D -P -l /home/reese/SA.log
But still, no luck.
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 15:35, Rick Ma
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:58:52PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I think this is a more substantial problem than that which requires a
> bit more work. Thanks for the patch though. I've made a note in
> bugzilla #115 about my intention to incorporate MIME::Tools for doing a
> lot of the hard work
Thank you for being insistent. I took your adivce. I modified .qmail to
look like:
|/usr/bin/spamassassin -P | safecat ./Maildir/tmp ./Maildir/new
And *bing* it works.
Thank you.
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 15:50, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Doing the | runs an external program and qmail-local
On 19 March 2002, Craig Hughes said:
> I think this is a more substantial problem than that which requires a
> bit more work. Thanks for the patch though. I've made a note in
> bugzilla #115 about my intention to incorporate MIME::Tools for doing a
> lot of the hard work for us. We should be ab
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 12:57 pm, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Actually, something I've noticed is that otherwise legitimate-looking
> email frequently gets tripped up by an ad tacked on the bottom of the
> mail -- this happens with mailing lists trying to support themselves,
> but also with things lik
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 02:54 pm, dman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:22:22PM -0800, Byrne Reese wrote:
> | Hopefully, someone can tell me to go read a specific FAQ or something,
> | but I have nothing that will help me get qmail to work with spam
> | assassin.
> |
> | I need spamassassin to
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 03:02 pm, dman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:34:23PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> | On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> | > I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime parts?
> | Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
> Does perl not have an
Don't know how big of a hack this would be, but it might be a good idea to CC
newly created bugs to the SAtalk list, so people would be reminded of it's
existance.
--
Visit http://dmoz.org, the world's | Give a man a match, and he'll be warm
largest human edited web directory. | for a minut
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:38:52 -0700
"Kerry Nice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw in the Lockergnome newsletter I received today, Spamassassin was
> slammed big time. I do see his point though. Does SA really do that
> great of a job with newsletters and journals?
Lets just say that "Boogie
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 March 2002 03:02 pm, dman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:34:23PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
>> | On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
>> | > I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime
>> | > parts?
>
>
Where are the spamd logs stored?
It shows this every time it processes mail:
Mar 19 11:56:08 bacon spamd[22447]: connection from localhost [ 127.0.0.1 ] at
port 45093
Mar 19 11:56:08 bacon spamd[23808]: Creating default_prefs
[/root/.spamassassin/user_prefs]
Mar 19 11:56:08 bacon spamd[23808]:
Not using Exim here. Am I getting closer with the following?
To =~ /^?$/i
Ed
~~
At 12:52 PM Tuesday, 3/19/2002, dman wrote -=>
>On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:10:08AM -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
>| On 18 March 2002, Ed Kasky said:
>| > I am in the process of learning regex and have a question if someon
80 matches
Mail list logo
