[SAtalk] no rewrite of subject line works...

hello, i got qmail-scanner with SA 2.20 working - i got header information on new written email, which tells me, that is spam. - Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by server by uid 532 with qmail-scanner-1.12 (spamassassin: 2.20. . Clear:SA:1(32.2/10.0):. Processed in 9.826316 secs)

[SAtalk] Error after upgrading

Hi! I've just upgraded from 2.01 to 2.30 and for some reason I now have an error message which causes all messages filtered through SA to fail :/ results of a cat sample-spam.txt | spamassassin -DP : amor# cat sample-spam.txt | spamassassin -DP debug: using "/usr/local/share/spamassassin" for d

Re: [SAtalk] Error after upgrading

Nils Vogels wrote: > results of a cat sample-spam.txt | spamassassin -DP : > > debug: Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: > auto_report_threshold 30 The auto_report_threshold line should be removed from user_prefs - SA's not reading it. > Can't locate object metho

[SAtalk] Problem: SA 2.31 does not split messages properly here

Hi, I installed SpamAssassing three days ago and am absolutely delighted at the job it does recognising spam. What a great piece of software! There is, however, a substantial problem, as I discovered. SA sometimes not splits messages properly, and as a result, messages may get lost. I would

Re: [SAtalk] Error after upgrading

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 08:56:23AM -0400, Bryan Hoover wrote: > Nils Vogels wrote: > > > results of a cat sample-spam.txt | spamassassin -DP : > > > > debug: Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: > > auto_report_threshold 30 > > The auto_report_threshold line should

[SAtalk] SA doesnt work with KMail

Hi, I'm using RedHat 7.3 with KDE3 and have set the filter for SA as described in the README, but it doesn't detect a single spam mail. I used the rpm to install, and I do not know what else I would have to do in order to make it run. It seems that SA is fully installed. But maybe I missed so

[SAtalk] Procmail recipe question...

Hi, All: I realize this is a beginner question, and it's related to my procmail recipe, but if anyone could help me, I'd appreciate it. My current procmail recipe is: :0fw | spamassassin -P :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes caughtspam Which works as intended. Good mail ends up in my inbox, bad mail

Re: [SAtalk] Procmail recipe question...

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:17:40AM -0500, Jim Howard wrote: > What I'd like to do is modify this rule so that it sends good mail to my > inbox, but also forwards it to another internet address, namely that of my > wireless device. At the end of your .procmailrc, add the following: :0c [EMAIL PRO

Re: [SAtalk] Procmail recipe question...

At 06/23/2002 08:17, Jim Howard wrote: >What I'd like to do is modify this rule so that it sends good mail to my >inbox, but also forwards it to another internet address, namely that of my >wireless device. Hi Jim, Add something like this to the end: :0 c ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Beware, how

Re: [SAtalk] Procmail recipe question...

Hi Jim, I'm new to SA, but I /do/ know a bit about procmail. I think the "c" flag will help you out here: :0fw | spamassassin -P :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes caughtspam :0 c !wireless@address ...The c flag copies the message. So the action line--"!wireless@address"--is enacted on the origin

[SAtalk] Make errors

Hi, I just tried to install SA using CPAN: cpan> install Mail::SpamAssassin but I get lots of failed tests: - - - Schnipp - - - Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/forged_rcvd.t

[SAtalk] lmtpproxy.py ... case dependent domains?

anyone see this problem before? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Command died with status 1: "/usr/local/bin/lmtpproxy.py". Command output: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/bin/lmtpproxy.py", line 230, in ? main(sys.argv) File "/usr/local/bin/lmtpproxy.py", line 227, i

Re: [SAtalk] Procmail recipe question...

I have spamassassin setup in a sitewide config using RH71, SendMail and ProcMail, all installed via RPM's. I configured /etc/procmail as follows: LOGDATE=`date +\%m\%d\%Y` LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail/PROCmAIL.LOG.$LOGDATE :0fw | /usr/local/bin/spamc I check the log file and I do see the message

[SAtalk] Postmaster Whitelist entry?

I was wondering if it is common practice to do a glabal whitelist entry for any postmaster-from address since it would be possible to get into a loop with rejected email? Ron --- Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ __

Re: [SAtalk] spamd woes (was: spamd ignoring local.cf)

Theo Van Dinter writes: >HUPping spamd won't do anything for you, you have to fully stop/start it. >In fact, sending it a HUP causes it to die because there's no handler >for it. That's too bad. It would be useful to be able to force spamd to reread its configuration file without having to k