Can anyone make some sense of this? I occasionally receive some spam which
does not get flagged with the *SPAM, however this appears in the
message headers:
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_tBdPHUQlY
On Friday 19 July 2002 00:50 CET Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach Theo Van Dinter am 2002-07-18 um 16:42:41 -0400 :
> > Perhaps you should try "spamc < sample-nonspam.txt" ... spamd is a
> > daemon, spamc is the client. You can't just netcat spam to spamd and
> > expect it to know what the fsc
Dear list,
i'm using spamassassin since 2.20 release (some months ago). Now I would upgrade to
2.31, but after installing spamassassin through cpan
shell, running the tests I obtain the following errors:
Bareword found where operator expected at (eval 7) line 742, near
"25FREEMEGS_URL_body_tes
Shane Williams said:
> I came across an email today that made me think the PROFITS rule
> should be:
> /\bPROFITS/ instead if /PROFITS?
> For instance, NONPROFITS would seem to be more likely to be legitimate
> email. (Two such messages were delivered to users today)
Yes, it should be, no quest
Jason Baker said:
> Could there be a simple explanation? I can't see "SMTPD32" as a
> particularly unique string... could something other than Imail also
> stick this string in there?
I've also seen obviously forged Received: headers with this, for some reason.
(Unfortunately, they're obviou
>Something must be wrong with your installation or setup.
>My average time for a scan is ~4 seconds and that's with
>RBL's checks and Razor.
That is forgetting a lot of versatility in network access.
I beleive I access most of the RBL servers through 2 satellite hops,
thats means 1 second RTT. A
>I already have RBL enabled in my MTA (postfix), and those RBL checks
>don't take anywhere near 30 seconds. Altho I will try setting
>"skip_rbl_checks" to 1 and try the timing again.
Be careful;l that RBL test of SA are not the same as RBL tests of your
MTA. SA does not test on the enveloppe, but
On Friday 19 July 2002 12:54 CET Rabellino Sergio wrote:
>[...]
> I've found in the archive another user with the same error, but my
> installation is on a clean perl 5.8.0 (released today ??) on a
> sparc/solaris8 box.
Which error report from another user are you referring to?
I tried to reprod
