Randy, there's no default option to access envelope information, though
you could easily write your own rule. However, using all_spam_to in
your user_prefs should accomplish the same thing, unless the mailing was
Bcc'ed. Of course, you could also create a rule looking for
List-Unsubscribe header
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 07:34:06PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
|
| I just want some positive feedback regarding a project that will
| design software that will remove ads in e-mails, once I get that
| I'll start with the actual code...
I can give you some actual code that Works For Me (IOW I'
I don't have but a few Email Accounts on my server so I've been using an
individual .procmailrc for each one. This is what I have as the
contents:
:0fw
| spamassassin -P
All this does is TAG the SPAM so that I could see just how much I was
getting on each account and then my Mail Client
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Jim Hale wrote:
> :0fw
> | spamassassin -P
>
> All this does is TAG the SPAM so that I could see just how much I was
> getting on each account and then my Mail Client would just throw these
> messages in another folder. Well, for 3 months now everything seems to
> be
Jim> What do I need to do to the above so that it sends anything tagged
Jim> as Spam to NOWHERE.
Try:
:0fw
| spamassassin -P
:0
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
/dev/null
though you may instead want something more forgiving of false positives like
SPAM=spam
:
Hello
I am trying to install spamassassin on Redhat 7.3 and use it with sendmail
8.11.6-15. I got spamassassin working I am not sure how to configure
sendmail to use it.
Thanks
John R. Allgood
Systems Administrator - ESC
(770) 532-2239 x9027
I currently have spam being filtered for about 50 users via spamd.
Works perfectly! However, is there anyone out there providing reports
to their users about what was filetered? Maybe just something like
date/time, From, and subject?
--
=
Joel Epstein
Manager
John:
The quickest way to implement spamassassin with Redhat is to use procmail,
which is, by default, your local delivery agent. This is done by making
a .procmailrc in the directory of users you want to protect with SA. That
file should simply read:
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamassassin -P
You co
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 the voices made Joel Epstein write:
> I currently have spam being filtered for about 50 users via spamd.
> Works perfectly! However, is there anyone out there providing reports
> to their users about what was filetered? Maybe just something like
> date/time, From, and subjec
Just to demonstrate that even a score of 10 or more doesn't guarantee
that something is spam, here are the X-Spam-Status headers generated by
the latest MSDN Flash newsletter:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=12.8 required=5.0
tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES,FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS,DOUBLE_CAPSWORD,
Actually, I sort the spam to another mail folder, but they do not see
it. I ran in a testing mode with simple ***spam*** tagging on their
mail for 3 months with very few errors (99.2% accuracy).
My goal is to provide them with a listing of the mail that was sorted
to another folder. This wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I know we've discussed spamc/spamd skipping emails regularly, but I'm
seeing it again (version 2.31), and it's not a file size issue.
I ran 'spamd -d -u nobody' for about five days, and in that time, the
only skipped emails were over the maximum size (this was
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Just to demonstrate that even a score of 10 or more doesn't guarantee
> that something is spam,
Oh, absolutely. Have a look at the attached email, which scores over 15
points with recent CVS.
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results
SPAM: 15.9 hits, 5 required;
SPAM: * 1.5
It _IS_ spam. The fact it is from M$DN does not mitigate the fact that they
take advantage of having your email address to load all that crap in the
same boat. If you want it, whitelist it. All M$ would have to do is have
their marketing cretins run their proposed email thru an internal SA set up
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, SpamTalk wrote:
> It _IS_ spam. The fact it is from M$DN does not mitigate the fact that they
> take advantage of having your email address to load all that crap in the
> same boat.
It's not spam unless they send it unsolicited. The point is merely that
a high SA content s
I am still of the opinion that the onus us upon the mass mailers to
legitimize their messages. I get other news letters that do not have to be
whitelisted. They send a short list of text synopses with hyperlink's to the
full story, so I only get blasted with ads (except I use guidescope
[www.guide
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, SpamTalk wrote:
> I am still of the opinion that the onus us upon the mass mailers to
> legitimize their messages.
Why is all advertising automatically illegitimate? But read on ...
> I get other news letters that do not have to be whitelisted. They send a
> short list of
I am using spamassassin 2.40 and I am getting 8.6 hits for the non
spam sample -- should I change the threshold or what?
Any assistance would be apreciated as I am new at this one.
--
John Covici
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Thi
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 the voices made Marc Perkel write:
> Yes they are!! I didn't solicit the Yahoo ad. ADVERTISING = SPAM. But
> you still missed my POINT so you should read my message and quit arguing
> values.
(I don't want to add to the noice on the list any longer, just one last
comment and
I'll apologize in advance for being a bit "strongly opinionated" but your
viewpoint on this strikes me as wrongheaded.
There is clearly a strong obligation for the snort development efforts to
reduce false positives. Heck, the whole reason snort uses a GA for score
assignment in the first plac
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 the voices made Bart Schaefer write:
> TO_BE_REMOVED_REPLY
> UNSUB_PAGE
> MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ
> These are the other big positives, all hitting on legitimate
> opt-out mechanisms. Why is it a bad thing to provide several
> different ways to opt out?
When toget
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, John Covici wrote:
> I am using spamassassin 2.40 and I am getting 8.6 hits for the non
> spam sample -- should I change the threshold or what?
I get 5.6 with the latest CVS. The problem seems to be the TRACKER_ID
test, plus TO_BE_REMOVED_REPLY is now hitting where it didn'
John Covici wrote:
> I am using spamassassin 2.40 and I am getting 8.6 hits for the non
> spam sample -- should I change the threshold or what?
Teehee.
First up, if you're new to SA, you really should use a release version,
since the code is tested and the scores settled upon by the GA engine.
In general I'd recommend not using 2.40 (or any CVS version) for any kind
of "production" use. After all, it's still a devel/CVS version, so try the
copy of 2.40 tomorrow and see if it still does it. For production use, go
for 2.31, which is the latest actual release of SA.
At 02:09 PM 7/23/
Oooops, first I started writing this off-list, then I changed my mind but
forgot about the subject-change... =(
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 the voices made Tony L. Svanstrom write:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 the voices made Marc Perkel write:
>
> > Yes they are!! I didn't solicit the Yahoo ad. ADVERTISING
>From: Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "SH" == Scott Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>SH> line (as root), I get an error saying it can't locate
>SH> Razor/Client.pm in @INC. Well, actually, I don't think I want to
>SH> run razor. I just want to use the other checks in SA. How can
Based on the following header info, is my rule built correctly?
Received: from (127.0.0.1) by MAIL3041.flowgo.com (PowerMTA(TM) v1.5); Mon, 22
Jul 2002 17:19:56 -0700
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
I want to make a rule that will tag it bassed on the flowgo.com in the recieved
lin
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Hmm, I think that Marc, being one of the most active and prolific
> posters to this list
Prolific != Useful.
> certainly understands SA much better than most.
> Certainly better than I do, and I suspect better than you do "rOD".
Yeah. What do I know? Only been contributi
Kevin Gagel wrote:
> Based on the following header info, is my rule built correctly?
>
> Received: from (127.0.0.1) by MAIL3041.flowgo.com (PowerMTA(TM)
> v1.5); Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:19:56 -0700
> (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> I want to make a rule that will tag it bassed on t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Here's what I've uncovered. If you're running spamd with the -c
option, it tries to write an individual prefs file. But, if the
user is over quota, spamd can't do so (since it's now running with the
user's prevs).
Note, however, that this failure is not logge
Does something like this work? Just trying to think of safety.
:0fw
| spamassassin -P
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
:0
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
Spam
-Original Message-
From: Skip Montanaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 5:15 AM
To:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 05:11 , Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Jim Hale wrote:
>
>> :0fw
>> | spamassassin -P
>>
>> All this does is TAG the SPAM so that I could see just how much I was
>> getting on each account and then my Mail Client would just throw these
>>
On Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 03:11 , John Rudd wrote:
>
> my first procmail recipe will look to see if the sender is in a "totally
> banned" list (there aren't multiple levels of blacklist are there? not
> like there are multiple levels of whitelist? I wish SA was my symetric
> about what f
I'm thinking of following this advise too. Is there a good reason that I should
not upgrad to the 2.40 at this time?
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Razor-users] can't find Razor/Client.pm
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:16:02 -0400
From: "Tabor J. Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Scott
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:55:35PM -0700, Kevin Gagel wrote:
> I'm thinking of following this advise too. Is there a good reason that I should
> not upgrad to the 2.40 at this time?
Unless you feel like doing some development, the answer is: it's not
released and is considered "use at your own ri
On Wednesday 24 July 2002 01:13 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:55:35PM -0700, Kevin Gagel wrote:
> > I'm thinking of following this advise too. Is there a good reason that
> > I should not upgrad to the 2.40 at this time?
>
> Unless you feel like doing some development, th
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:37:33AM -0500, Joel Epstein wrote:
| I currently have spam being filtered for about 50 users via spamd.
| Works perfectly! However, is there anyone out there providing reports
| to their users about what was filetered? Maybe just something like
| date/time, From, an
This MSDN mail thing reminds me of how I've documented this feature of
SpamAssassin here so that our users understand it.
I define "Solicited Commercial Email" vs "Unsolicited Commercial Email" -
the latter being SPAM. As SpamAssassin basically looks for "Commercial
Email", both get hit, and that
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:43:24PM -0400, rODbegbie wrote:
> > It's quite clear that most of this list does not consider
> > all advertisement to be spam, particularly when attached to a valid
> > personal email by a third-party service.
>
> Cool. So we're all in agreement then. Except for Marc
> PS I know my English isn't good, but... "negative score added", can
> you really say that? Adding something negative... hmmm...
Yes, that is perfectly legitimate. It is a math / accounting thing.
You get a paycheck for $100. You get a bill for $20. You add them
up. Some of the additions are
>I currently have spam being filtered for about 50 users via spamd.
>Works perfectly! However, is there anyone out there providing reports
>to their users about what was filetered? Maybe just something like
>date/time, From, and subject?
Yup! You can check: http://www.cs.ait.ac.th/laboratory/em
I will be out of the office starting 07/20/2002 and will not return until
07/29/2002.
I will respond to your message when I return. If there is an immediate need
to contact a CCIS representative, you can call our office at 610-518-5700.
---
I have been getting a lot of audio (Klez virus) files lately. There
is not enough for SA to grip onto right now. Perhaps something like
the following?
body XWAV_IN_BODY /Content-Type:\s*audio\/x-wav/i
describe XWAV_IN_BODY x-wav audio in body of mail
score XWAV_IN_BODY
Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been getting a lot of audio (Klez virus) files lately.
So have I. So have a lot of people. Rather than reinvent the wheel and have to do it
all over again for the next virus du jour, just install an antivirus program that is
made for the job and come
> > > It's quite clear that most of this list does not consider
> > > all advertisement to be spam, particularly when attached to a valid
> > > personal email by a third-party service.
> >
> > Cool. So we're all in agreement then. Except for Marc.
>
> So what brilliant metric do you have in min
45 matches
Mail list logo
