[SAtalk] Re: #2 Re: getting spamd to work with sendmail

--- Quoting Jeffrey Bacon on 2002/03/19 at 12:10 -0500: > 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 lo

[SAtalk] Perl implementation of spamc?

Hi, all. I was going over in my mind how best I could improve the proxy. Then it hit me: Why not do things the same way that spamc/spamd do? That way, only one process really chews up memory, and all the proxy does is field the message, then send it through spamd rather than doing all the che

[SAtalk] [Bug 121] New: My online telephone bill gets tagged as SPAM

http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121 Summary: My online telephone bill gets tagged as SPAM Product: Spamassassin Version: 2.20CVS Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: trivial Pr

[SAtalk] [Bug 122] New: LINE_OF_YELLING matches line of just periods

http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122 Summary: LINE_OF_YELLING matches line of just periods Product: Spamassassin Version: 2.11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Prior

[SAtalk] Re: [Bug 120] New: No subject yields "All caps" test result [patch]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 02:16:24PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120 > >Summary: No subject yields "All caps" test result >Product: Spamassassin >Version: 2.11 > Platform: PC > OS/Versi

[SAtalk] Re: [Exim] Spamassassin config for running from exim

- Original Message - From: "Nigel Metheringham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:46 AM Subject: [Exim] Spamassassin config for running from exim > # in directors > # Spam Assassin > spamcheck_director: > # When

[SAtalk] [Bug 123] New: Attached Spam crashes spamassassin

http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123 Summary: Attached Spam crashes spamassassin Product: Spamassassin Version: 2.11 Platform: PC OS/Version: FreeBSD Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P1

[SAtalk] Re: [Exim] Spamassassin config for running from exim

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 02:09:54PM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: | - Original Message - | From: "Nigel Metheringham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Subject: [Exim] Spamassassin config for running from exim [...] | I've got this configuration working here (since yesterday :-) and it's | working f

[SAtalk] [Bug 124] New: spamd pid patch

http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Summary: spamd pid patch Product: Spamassassin Version: 1.5 Platform: Other OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component:

[SAtalk] [Bug 124] spamd pid patch

http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement --- You a

[SAtalk] idea: Rules about other rules

I got the idea of creating rules that would be triggered depending upon what other rules had already been triggered, so that you could combine different tests for greater accuracy. For instance, the rule US_DOLLARS is described as a "Nigerian scam key phrase", but it's separate from the NIGERI

[SAtalk] [Bug 125] New: [Debian 139777] Description for DATE_IN_FUTURE is wrong.

http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125 Summary: [Debian 139777] Description for DATE_IN_FUTURE is wrong. Product: Spamassassin Version: 2.11 Platform: All URL: http://bugs.debian.org/139777 OS/Version: All

Re: [SAtalk] idea: Rules about other rules

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 04:44:59PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote: > I got the idea of creating rules that would be triggered depending upon what > other rules had already been triggered, so that you could combine different > tests for greater accuracy. For instance, the rule US_DOLLARS is describe

[SAtalk] More rules for SPAM_PHRASES?

Right now there's test for spam phrase scores of 10, 20, 40, and 100. Why aren't there test for, say, 15, 25, and 30? If we're going to test for 40 and 100, shouldn't there also be a test for halfway in-between at 70? Is the current set of scores optimal in some way that I can't see? -- Vi

RE: [SAtalk] More rules for SPAM_PHRASES?

> Right now there's test for spam phrase scores of 10, 20, 40, and 100. Why > aren't there test for, say, 15, 25, and 30? If we're going to test for 40 > and 100, shouldn't there also be a test for halfway in-between at > 70? Is the > current set of scores optimal in some way that I can't see?

Re: [SAtalk] More rules for SPAM_PHRASES?

On Sunday 24 March 2002 10:43 pm, Michael Moncur wrote: > Matthew Cline wrote: > > Right now there's test for spam phrase scores of 10, 20, 40, and 100. > > Why aren't there test for, say, 15, 25, and 30? If we're going to test > > for 40 and 100, shouldn't there also be a test for halfway in-

[SAtalk] More misc rules

First, five headers I've found found only in spam. There's not many instances of them, but it should help: # X-MailingID and X-ServerHost seem to only be used by a single # spamming software, and are found together in the same message header X_MAIL_ID_PRESENT X-MailingID =~ /./ describe X