Pete Hanson wrote:
> From PerMsgStatus.pm as distributed with SA 2.31 (line number 1879):
>
> m/^(()*)/; $_=$&; $leftover=$';
>
> This can be replaced with:
>
> m/^((?:)*)(.*)/ ; $_ = $1 ; $leftover = $2 ;
>
> and possibly simplified further. As near as I can tell, this is the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30 Jun 2002 at 23:33, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>
> | reliable,
>
> sendmail is, I think, the MTA with the most security holes (in its
> lifetime). At least, I have heard of a great many holes in sendmail,
> but not nearly as many in exim, p
Hello,
I'm trying to install Spamassassin on a Sun workstation (Solaris
5.5). As described in the installation doc, I unzip and untar the
archive (Mail-Spamassassin-2.30). But I have problems when compiling
spam.c :
gcc -fno-strict-aliasing -O spamd/spamc.c \
-o spamd/sp
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 the voices made Derrick 'dman' Hudson write:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:10:51AM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> | > At 06/30/2002 14:25, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> | >
> | > > Sorry for the noice, but even something as simple as finding the
> | > > local version of sendmai
I have a few Spams that are *very* obviously
porn spams that made it through SA.
How can I tell SA to look for the
words contaned in it in the future?
Thank you,
Weyland
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heave
> Have you tried both -q, and -x?
$ ps -wax | grep spamd
24805 ?S 30:21 /usr/local/bin/perl /usr/local/bin/spamd -x -q -d
-L -u nobody
-q, -x, -d, -L and -u :-)
> The spamd source looks like it wants to do one or the other, but not
> both.
Weird. It sees that the mail is for ste
Hi, after testing unsuccessfully for the presence of spamphrases in mails, i
started looking into the maillog.
The problem is reported through sendmail as :
mimedefang-multiplexor: Slave 1 stderr: Use of uninitialized value at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/SpamAssassin/PhraseFreq
s.p
The problem is spamd/spamc.c uses a rather funky test to determine
if in_addr_t is defined in a standard system include file, or if
the program should define in_addr_t itself. The test combines a
test for the OS type and a check for EX__MAX being defined.
The test is broken for some versions of O
I have been having a lot of trouble getting SPAMD/SPAMC to work on my RedHat
7.2 box.
In short, if I use the following in my /etc/procmailrc:
:0fw
| spamc
The mail gets delivered to the local mailbox without any Spamassasin headers
added. Putting the SPAMD into debug mode shows that ma
I had a similar problem, and after going through the documentation I noticed
that the problem was that I had forgotten to add the following to the
beginning of the procmailrc file:
DROPPRIVS=yes
Best Regards,
Christian Rasmussen
--
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Kohlsmith" <[EMAIL P
Using 2.31 installed from CPAN:
I just got a message that scored on DOUBLE_CAPSWORD, but I ran it through
perl -ne 'print if /\b([A-Z]{3,})\b.{0,50}\b\1\b/'
and it that didn't print anything. If I append an 'i' to the pattern to
make it case-insensitive, it hits on three lines.
Is there
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 08:59:28AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> I just got a message that scored on DOUBLE_CAPSWORD, but I ran it through
> perl -ne 'print if /\b([A-Z]{3,})\b.{0,50}\b\1\b/'
> and it that didn't print anything. If I append an 'i' to the pattern to
> make it case-insensitiv
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> That's not how SA works though, it's not a per-line thing, it's a per
> paragraph thing.
Another case of lousy descriptions?
describe DOUBLE_CAPSWORD A word in all caps repeated on the line
> perl -ne 'BEGIN { $/="" } print if /\b([A-Z]{3,})\b
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:12:51AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Another case of lousy descriptions?
>
> describe DOUBLE_CAPSWORD A word in all caps repeated on the line
Yeah. Everyone thinks it's lines, but it's not. This comes up on the
list every now and again.
--
Randomly Generated
I need to uninstall SA so I can do a clean install of it. The reason is
that I am using SA in conjunction with MailScanner and I installed SA before
MS. Now my @INC path is hosed and I don't know how to fix it. Here's the
error I get when trying to start MS with SA enabled:
Can't locate Mail/S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 30 June 2002 10:50 am, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 09:01:59AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > Get the 3.23pre snapshot of procmail:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.procmail.org/pub/procmail/testing/snapshot.tar.gz
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Mike Diehl wrote:
> I used to use procmail about 5 years ago and didn't have this problem,
> though.
The bug got introduced when code was added to procmail to use mmap(), as
far as I can tell. So it's only in recent versions.
--
Hi Matthew,
> Right, we're dictators, *forcing* our concerns on the masses
> *yearning* for email advertisements, and he's a freedom fighter. Or
> soemthing.
I'm fully with you in the trenches on this one, Matthew. FWIW: I've been
fighting Spam for years, but sometimes I'm also pricelessly puz
On Monday 01 July 2002 06:04 pm, Michael Stauber wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> > Right, we're dictators, *forcing* our concerns on the masses
> > *yearning* for email advertisements, and he's a freedom fighter. Or
> > something.
> I'm fully with you in the trenches on this one, Matthew. FWIW: I've be
On Monday 01 July 2002 07:00 am, Weyland wrote:
> I have a few Spams that are *very* obviously
> porn spams that made it through SA.
>
> How can I tell SA to look for the
> words contaned in it in the future?
You can try to figure out which porn phrases aren't being picked up by SA,
then add the
Hi Tony,
> Sorry for the noice, but even something as simple as finding the local
> version of sendmail.mc nearly drow me nuts, so I thought I'd ask if
> anyone's had the displeasure of setting up SA on a RaQ3 so that forwarded
> (as set up with the webUI) e-mails are scanned too.
I have a Spam
Hi Mattew,
> Being heavy-handed isn't the same thing as being Nazi-ish. No matter how
> heavy handed they might be, the real-world equivalent of black-lists are
> boycotts, not Fascists and dictators.
I'd say taking entire IP-subnets into "Sippenhaft" (collective hostage taking)
to catch just
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 the voices made Michael Stauber write:
> That's no unique event and I've seen that happening a couple of times with
> different providers and different blacklists in recent years. Its not exactly
> fun.
I've been hit by this too, and I can't help but think that these blacklis
Hi,
is it possible (and how) to configure spamd/sa-exim that way, that
the spammer gets a return code, which says, that my email address is
permanently not reachable (was it return code 550 ??? I am not
sure...)
Or in other words, s/hr should get the same result as my email address
isn't e
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:56:48AM +0200, Meino Christian Cramer wrote:
| Hi,
|
| is it possible (and how) to configure spamd/sa-exim that way, that
| the spammer gets a return code, which says, that my email address is
| permanently not reachable (was it return code 550 ??? I am not
| sure..
On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 19:50, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> Red Hat linux 7.3 with sendmail-8.12.2-7
> Razor-2.09
> spamassassin-2.20-1
Similar setup, RH7.2, no Razor, SA installed from SRPM.
> Then I created my /etc/procmailrc with content:
> :0fw
> | spamc
>
> I modified my init.d/spamassassin
I had SpamAssassin working great until last week when my ISP changed something.
Prior to
that, I did not need a .forward file. It seemed to run mail through the .procmailrc on
its
own. Well, the mail stopped going through SpamAssassin, and the spam started coming in!
So, reviewing the RE
27 matches
Mail list logo
