I've seen similar: I'm running all my mail through a "spamc -f" on my
mail gateway (a Pentium 75), and every now and then a pile of mail
comes through without any SpamAssassin headers at all. My guess is
that the filtering gets so heavy that the spamd daemon refuses
connections, but I have no proo
Matthew Cline wrote:
>One way that spammers could try to get around some of the URI rules (at least
>for HTML only spam) is to put the main part of the URI into a tag, so
>that all of the URIs pulled from won't match rules which
>look for domain names and "http://";. I've modified
>get_decoded
I just received a mail whose title contained:
Subject: 8 P [ADV:ADLT] Time for Detention girls.. l
ADVERT_CODE is set to
Subject =~ /(^\s*|\s+)ADV:/i
Shouldn't this be something like:
Subject =~ /\bADV:/i
..since you don't have to start a word with a space.
Also why is ADVERT_CODE set to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Henning Daum wrote:
> You should pay attention to the "du" output too, not only the "ls" file
> size. On some systems at least a mechanism of the unix file system is used,
> which allows "holes" in files, which are counted into the file size but
> aren't really allocated. DMB
Remember that spamc will only scan messages that are 250KB or smaller.
Could it be that some larger messages are the ones that you saw without any
SA headers?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
> Doty
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20
On 20 March 2002, Theo Van Dinter said:
> But that is a valid Message-Id according to RFC 2822. Unless you really
> want to get into the RFC and do a regex check by the strict standards, all
> you can really check is that the Message-Id is of the form /^<.+@.+>$/.
> That can probably be made a li
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:58:35AM -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
> I think "message id with no dot after the @" is worth detecting, but
> with a low positive score -- that sort of thing occurs depressingly
> often in real email too.
What I'm arguing is: don't replace the regexp of INVALID_MSGID with on
I've been using spamassassin for a few weeks now and am ready to
install it on my mail server instead of running procmail scripts on
the client side.
I've been running 2.01 with no difficulty, but now when I put 2.11 on
the server things are a little funny. Specifically, the messages are
flagged
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:21:21PM -, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> I just received a mail whose title contained:
>
> Subject: 8 P [ADV:ADLT] Time for Detention girls.. l
>
> ADVERT_CODE is set to
>
> Subject =~ /(^\s*|\s+)ADV:/i
>
> Shouldn't this be something like:
>
> Subject =~ /\bADV:/i
>
Here are a couple of rules I am using to catch spam from em5000.net, a
so-called "legitimate" email service that nonetheless sends me nothing but
spam. They've been VERY active lately - these rules would have caught literally
2/3 of my spam that SpamAssassin has missed in the last two weeks.
I'm
On 21 March 2002, Theo Van Dinter said:
> What I'm arguing is: don't replace the regexp of INVALID_MSGID with one
> that isn't actually checking for invalid message-ids.
Right, understood. Makes sense to me.
> Adding a new test that looks for ".+@.+\..+" would be fine by me, since it's
> a new
I am having a strange problem: our users that are using slocal (from nmh)
in their .forward files do not have their email messages go through
SpamAssassin. Note that their mail does cget correctly processed by our
milters (we have two). Deleting their .forward fixes the .problem. The
.forward
It would be none of a hack. Bugzilla has that feature built in. I'll
go ahead and do that.
C
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 18:30, Matthew Cline wrote:
> 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 o
Nick, to cure your timeout issues, try using spamc's trick of bypassing
actually processing the message for large messages. Basically, as it's
reading the message, it checks how much message is there, then if it
gets more than 250k it just sends it back out unprocessed. If less than
250k, it for
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 10:25, dman wrote:
> Use the 'maildir' format, hope your system has a decent disk cache,
> and use mutt :-). I've got a folder that had 3000+ messages. The
> first time it was opened it would take several seconds to load (my
> disk isn't too fast either), but after that it
They shouldn't get lost, but spam scanning will be aborted. In other
words, spamc will notice that spamd vanished, and will just dump the
unprocessed message back out.
In theory.
C
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 10:40, Doug Herr wrote:
>
> If I wish to shut down spamd on a Redhat system without using
Can anyone tell me how to get 2.11 onto CPAN while Justin's gone?
C
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 12:20, Michael Blakeley wrote:
> WIth 2.01 installed via CPAN, spamassassin complains about missing
> Razor::Client - but it is installed:
>
> $ perl -MRazor::Client -e 'print "$Razor::Client::VERSI
Okay, added to web site FAQ
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 12:35, Maurits Bloos wrote:
> Shouldn't this be on the SpamAssassin website... ?
> A lot of people seem to have problems with Razor 1.20
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matthew Cline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: woensdag 20
Craig Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 10:25, dman wrote:
>
> > Use the 'maildir' format, hope your system has a decent disk cache,
> > and use mutt :-). I've got a folder that had 3000+ messages. The
> > first time it was opened it would take several seconds to load
On 21 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Can anyone tell me how to get 2.11 onto CPAN while Justin's gone?
http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamass
I'm subscribed to a couple of mailing lists that have URLS pointing
to unsubscribe info in the trailers of messages.
I'd like to trap all spam from the mailng lists but specifically disable
the unsubscribe test when header elements indicate that the email came
from the mailing lists. Maybe I cou
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 02:30, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Matthew Cline wrote:
>
> >One way to get around this would be to rewrite the URI rules so to reduce
> >the dependency on the URI starting with "protocol://". Since SA now harvests
> >URIs out of the message and hands them to the URI tester as a
On Thursday 21 March 2002 11:44 am, you wrote:
>
> Guys, I've had lots of problems with Reiser. The whole point, IMHO,
> is to have a FS that works when the system fails. On no less than
> three out of three machines (differing OS versions, but all Redhat
> based) we've used it on we've ended u
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 11:44, Rich Wellner wrote:
> Craig Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And use reiserfs too if you can. Big directories are *much* faster
> > in reiser than many other alternatives.
>
> Guys, I've had lots of problems with Reiser. The whole point, IMHO,
> is to have
Well, I guess I'm a bit of an exception in the world,
a computer geek with English and Film degrees. That
probably explains a few things. I like to think I
have a wide variety of interests rather than being
fluffy.
If it seems worthwhile, I would be happy to set up an
account on my machine and
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:40:43AM -0500, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> Remember that spamc will only scan messages that are 250KB or smaller.
> Could it be that some larger messages are the ones that you saw without any
> SA headers?
That's not it -- nothing particularly large about thes
That sender is in your Auto Whitelist. And somehow scored a really low
score once (did you have them in the regular whitelist for a while?)
Also, the header line you quoted below is a 2.01 header line, not 2.11
C
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 09:08, Rich Wellner wrote:
> I've been using spamassassin f
This set of headers escaped the "From=To" rule. Seems like there could
easily be a rule they *would* violate, though:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The same message also had a header
> X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC822 header formatting in Sub
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 12:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I'd like to trap all spam from the mailng lists but specifically disable
> the unsubscribe test when header elements indicate that the email came
> from the mailing lists. Maybe I could set the score for the unsubscribe
> to zero in some ca
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:18:18PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The same message also had a header
>
> > X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC822 header formatting in Subject:=?ISO-8859-
> 1?Q?=A1=E3=A7A=A5u=ADn=C6[=AC=DD=A6=B9=BDu=A4W=BCv=A4=F9=BC=B7=A9=F1VCD=B4N=A6
> =B3=BE=F7=B7|=A7=EF=C5=DC
About a month or so ago we talked a bit on this list about generating
statistics based on SA's logged activity.
I've since written the spiffy little perlscript I discussed back then,
and while I was at it I made it talk to our rrdtool graphing setup. The
result (which may not be all that direct
Craig Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I won't bother getting too deep into this topic, but it works great
> for me.
Yes, that's the funny part. It's a hard topic (and an off topic here)
to get into.
So, I'll just clarify a couple things and then let whoever wants to
have the last word
Craig Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, the header line you quoted below is a 2.01 header line, not
> 2.11
Yup, that's the key. I noticed that when my questioning email came
back to me from the list, but didn't take action until you too
asserted that it should have the correct version.
Title: Message
Hi
all,
Had Spamassassin
installed for some time. Scans all message coming in through our server
via procmail.
Now SA doesn't seem
to run. The message is passed to spamc then spamd as per the log below,
but you'll see there is no response back regarding the message bein
Has anyone worked on modifing mailstats so it will graph the amount of
spam identified.
TIA
P.S. Or any scriptable way to be able to show a trend in postfix on
the amount of mail recieved that is spam.
--
--
Ron Ross
Sidney Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's a summary of anti-spam laws of various states in the US at
>
> http://www.spamlaws.com/state/summary.html
>
> The ones that require some identifying text in the Subject line are
> (Where only an "Adult" version is mentioned the law only appl
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:59:13PM -0800, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 12:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I'd like to trap all spam from the mailng lists but specifically disable
>> the unsubscribe test when header elements indicate that the email came
>> from the mailing lists.
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 18:24, William R Ward wrote:
> > http://www.spamlaws.com/state/summary.html
> > Wisconsin: "ADULT ADVERTISEMENT" anywhere in subject line
>
> I've never seen spam with this in the subject line, caught by SA
> or otherwise.
Maybe Wisconsin doesn't have the right weather f
Hi All:
I've just downloaded and installed SA via CPAN. As ROOT, the test to see
if it's working, namely,
spamassassin -t < sample-spam.txt correctly identifies the spam.
As any other 'regular' user, the same test doesn't identify the message as
spam, but places a single line at the end of th
I've made a bunch of changed to get_decoded_stripped_body_text_array().
First, rather than decoding hex entities like � directly to ascii
characters, I chaned it to convert them to decimal before the decimeal
entities are replaced. Thus ” will get converted first to ň and
then to a double quo
40 matches
Mail list logo
