Hello
* Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [30.05.02 18:47]:
> For the record, this *might* be fixed in
> ftp://ftp.procmail.net/pub/procmail/testing/snapshot.tar.gz
> I've never seen the problem myself, but I'd be interested to hear whether
> anyone who is seeing it has better luck with th
I got the identical newsletter from "TheStockPlayers" at work where I have
the stock 2.20 from CPAN installed, and at home where I have the latest
2.21 from CVS installed.
Here's the result from 2.20:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=9.0 required=5.0
tests=DEAR_SOMEBODY,EXCUSE_3,EXCUSE_7,
CLICK_BEL
On May 31, 2002 06:31 pm, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Jason Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This one got by with a 4.8/5... mostly in Korean, except for the
> > footer. The footer was worth having to read it though. :)
>
> The language guessing code (now in CVS) might have been able to detect
>
= WECS.COM AUTOMATIC NOTICE =
Dear SPAM proliferation victim,
Your email to WECS.COM was identified as SPAM. This can happen because of
the email's content, its site origin, or bad or forged header information.
If you're not a SPAMMER (kind of like asking a lier...), the
Craig> I'm guessing the original author actually wants to blacklist the
Craig> word fuck, but is too timid to actually type that to a mailing
Craig> list of people (s)he doesn't know.
If that's the case, I recommend dropping into a pseudo-Irish dialect, as in:
He's jest a feckin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>= WECS.COM AUTOMATIC NOTICE =
Teehee.
Yet another example of why bouncing/devnulling mail tagged as spam is a bad
idea :)
bhoover -- you might want to consider whitelist_toing spamassassin-talk.
rOD.
--
"I'll hide somewhere, and you'll wear bi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>= WECS.COM AUTOMATIC NOTICE =
>
> Dear SPAM proliferation victim,
>
> Your email to WECS.COM was identified as SPAM. This can happen because of
> the email's content, its site origin, or bad or forged header information.
Wecs.com person:
please
Hi,
First, funny thing happened today, I got the Digest flagged as spam (8.2/6.8)
I have spamd installed with spamproxyd on a Postfix machine.
I think my /etc/mail/spamassasin/local.cf file is not parsed, at least some
rules..
I'm not using procmail and don't need per/user prefs.
Is there anot
Title: Ports
Hello
This may not be completely relevant to this mail forum, but maybe you can help. I have a relay set up using spamassassin and Vipul's Razor. The system is currently configured on a DMZ and I need to know what ports I should open on our firewall in order for Razor to
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 02:51:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This may not be completely relevant to this mail forum, but maybe
> you can help. I have a relay set up using spamassassin and Vipul's Razor.
> The system is currently configured on a DMZ and I need to know what ports I
> s
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 07:17:16PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>= WECS.COM AUTOMATIC NOTICE =
>
> Dear SPAM proliferation victim,
>
> Your email to WECS.COM was identified as SPAM. This can happen because of
> the email's content, its site origin, or bad or forged he
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:54:07PM +0200, Sweethome.co.il Webmaster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First, funny thing happened today, I got the Digest flagged as spam
> (8.2/6.8)
>
> I have spamd installed with spamproxyd on a Postfix machine.
> I think my /etc/mail/spamassasin/local.cf file is not parsed, a
Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Wecs.com person:
>
> please be smarter about passing sa-talk digest messages through SA and
> then
> sending bounce messages to the mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> C
Hi Craig,
Got any salt to go with this egg all over my face?
Not sure what's going on though. I just swit
Bryan Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Not sure what's going on though. I just switched to Digest mode. The
> devel group did not have a problem (that I know of, and the digest got
> through).
>
> Here's what's in my user_prefs:
>
> whitelist_to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> whitelist_to [EMAI
Harry Putnam wrote:
> Maybe a little different approach wouldn't require as much huffing
> and puffing:
> header Spama X-BeenThere =~ spamassassin-.*@lists
> score Spama -100
>
> So to get to spam status the score must go over +100.
>
> I haven't tested this much yet. Only started it when I
Hi,
It is not exactlly fitting in that thread but...
> Maybe a little different approach wouldn't require as much huffing
> and puffing:
> header Spama X-BeenThere =~ spamassassin-.*@lists
> score Spama -100
I noticed that SA do not check the messages that have the X-BeenThere
header in it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have listed a number of whitelist entries in my user_prefs file.
>
> Regardless of an identifying header being listed in the whitelist,
> spamassassin still marks some mail which should be protected by the
> whitelist as spam.
>
> And there seems to be no constant rul
Bryan Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
>
>> Maybe a little different approach wouldn't require as much huffing
>> and puffing:
>> header Spama X-BeenThere =~ spamassassin-.*@lists
>> score Spama -100
>>
>> So to get to spam status the score must go over +100.
>>
>> I
SA has been running great here for 2 months. I am very happy with it's
performance. In the last week I have gooten the following error message
twice. Can anyone fill me in on what and why this is?
>From a mailstat log of procmail...
Total Average Number Folder
- --- -- --
Olivier Nicole wrote:
> I noticed that SA do not check the messages that have the X-BeenThere
> header in it.
Nah, I don't think there's anything wrong with your set up. I don't
think SA uses this. You simply need to add your lists to
./spamassassin/user_prefs.
Bryan
--
Labor exploitation hur
Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'm not sure I see how whitelist_from or to will work, unless the
> `from' is a reference to the berkely format `From ' (note the
> missing :)
>
It works because - well, I don't know. Which is kind of the point.
That is, the syntax, whitelist_from, etc., has nothing to do
> My spam_ass mail is never from the list address, nor to the list address.
> So how does whitelisting_from `spamassassin' do any good? I don't
> doubt that it does, or that I have a screwball conception of how it
> works but I don't understand how it would work.
I think CC: works as well as To:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:45:37PM -0400, Doug Crompton wrote:
>
> SA has been running great here for 2 months. I am very happy with it's
> performance. In the last week I have gooten the following error message
> twice. Can anyone fill me in on what and why this is?
>
It's a known bug fixed in
Doug Crompton wrote:
> SA has been running great here for 2 months. I am very happy with it's
>
> performance. In the last week I have gooten the following error
> message
> twice. Can anyone fill me in on what and why this is?
>
> >From a mailstat log of procmail...
>
> Total Average Number F
Bryan Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have listed a number of whitelist entries in my user_prefs file.
>>
>> Regardless of an identifying header being listed in the whitelist,
>> spamassassin still marks some mail which should be protected by the
>> whitelist
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:51:25PM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'm running spamd like this:
> spamd -d -D -L -S
Once spamd daemonizes (with the -d option) it's debugging output is
sent to /dev/null (It's a "well-behaved daemon"). Run "spamd -D -L -S
>> log &" if you want, it has essentially th
Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'm running spamd like this:
> spamd -d -D -L -S
> Using the standard procmail method, where should I find any logs that
> indicate a problem with any config files. They don't seem to appear
> in syslog output nor in procmail.log.
>
Looking at the spamd source, you can u
Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:51:25PM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> I'm running spamd like this:
>> spamd -d -D -L -S
>
> Once spamd daemonizes (with the -d option) it's debugging output is
> sent to /dev/null (It's a "well-behaved daemon"). Run "spamd
Bryan Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I see how whitelist_from or to will work, unless the
>> `from' is a reference to the berkely format `From ' (note the
>> missing :)
>>
>
> It works because - well, I don't know. Which is kind of the point.
> That is
Harry Putnam wrote:
> Note further that whitelist_to, it seems then, would not be usefull
> for the spam_a lists since it never appears in To: and may or may not
> appear in Cc:
Which may have caused me (and members of the list) some mail bouncing
problems when I initially joined. That is, it w
Harry Putnam wrote:
> So I think Duncan has hit it, in that -d (daemonize) silences the
> debug output.
Indeed sir. I was woefully ignorant of the behavior.
Does that mean too, that when spamd calls SA, SA does not log as usual?
My thought was that if there are problems in your config files, t
> Note further that whitelist_to, it seems then, would not be usefull
> for the spam_a lists since it never appears in To: and may or may not
> appear in Cc:
I'm confused. Your message has spamassassin-talk in the To: field. So does
this one. In my scan through the last 24 hours worth of message
32 matches
Mail list logo
