Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor making me think that I was compromised?

Quote from razor-users: -- razor-agents use TCP port 7 (TCP echo) to determine what servers are closest to it. cheers, vipul. Razor2 also generates outbound TCP traffic to port 2703 on the razor servers. Razor 1 uses 2702 if I recall correctly. At 02:06 PM 10/21/200

[SAtalk] spamd run time error.

try to run spamd, got following error: Can't locate syslog.ph in @INC (did you run h2ph?) (@INC contains: ../lib /usr/perl5/5.00503/sun4-solaris /usr/perl5/5.00503 /usr/perl5/site_perl/5.005/sun4-solaris /usr/perl5/site_perl/5.005 .) at /usr/perl5/5.00503/Sys/Syslog.pm line 117. BEGIN failed--c

RE: [SAtalk] End user options that would be useful

| be possible to tell SA to ignore its own rule if the admin | defined one with the same name in his local.cf. That way Why not just set the score to 0 and create a similar rule with a different name? --- This sf.net emial is sponsored by

Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor making me think that I was compromised?

This is a bad choice for a port IMHO. Frankly every firewall I set up (and have seen up close) blocks tcp/udp 1-19. Those services have no purpose on the Internet at large IMHO. They are plagued with security issues and under-maintained source projects. I wonder if Razor will fail if tcp/7 is b

[SAtalk] spamassassin -r can't find pizor

freebsd 4.7-stable as of 2002.10.20 spamassassin 2.41 from ports tree using spamd -c -d fresh reinstall of whole spamassassing port and dependencies just in case "spamassassin -r" from inside my mail user agent (VM under Emacs 21.2.1) gives me pyzor: not found pyzor: not found % which p

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin-talk -- confirmation of subscription --request 737097

And you sent this to the list...why? On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Martin Balvers wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:15:24 -0700 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Spamassassin-talk -- confirmation of subscription -- request 737097 -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS teln

Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor making me think that I was compromised?

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:03:50 -0500 (CDT), you wrote: >This is a bad choice for a port IMHO. Frankly every firewall I set up >(and have seen up close) blocks tcp/udp 1-19. Those services have no >purpose on the Internet at large IMHO. They are plagued with security >issues and under-maintained s

Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor making me think that I was compromised?

I doubt razor will fail, but it won't likely work as well as it should. As far as security goes, I think you're over-stating the problem. (Yes, I will take the stand that I do know my hind-end from a hole in the wall on this topic, although I'm not an industry expert.) You can't be part of a lo

[SAtalk] End user options that would be useful

I am using SpamAssassin as a personal filter and really like it. I made a couple of changes that I think might be worthwhile options for end-users. They wouldn't work for ISPs or corporate mail servers for speed and probably frequency of hit reasons, but really cut down on the spam that gets th

Re: [SAtalk] corpus submissions

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > Rich Wellner said: > >> > take a look at "CORPUS_SUBMIT" in the "masses" subdir of the distribution. >> > You'll need to get down'n'dirty with CVS and rsync, but it's well >> > documented. >> >> I read that file (from 2.43) and it appears to want to test

Re: [SAtalk] corpus submissions

Rich Wellner said: > I still think my submissions of spam that isn't flagged by the system is > of particular usefulness, am I deluding myself? It seems like FP's or > FN's woul d always be the most useful additions. Well, too many and they'll overbalance the corpus [1] so it no longer simulate

[SAtalk] user_prefs with spamd?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm running spamd sitewide but would like to be able to use user_prefs. I read the man page and it indicates that using the -x option will do this, but its unclear if I need to specify -x to turn user_pref files on or I need to specify -x to turn us

Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor making me think that I was compromised?

In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor making me think that I was compromised? dated Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:06:00 -0500 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said that ... >l- On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Frank Pineau wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:03:50 -0500 (CDT), you wrote: > > > > >This is a bad choic

[SAtalk] Getting spamd to recognize -D datediff=-10, etc.

I've searched through the docs, the net, and the source code, and I can't find a way to do the following: I'd like to start up spamd and specify debug levels in the same way that I can do it via the spamassassin command line; i.e., via ... spamd -D datediff=-10 -D timelog=-3 ... etc. Short of

Re: [SAtalk] End user options that would be useful

I tried this and had Much better results on porn spam! They tend to be repetitiveThey tend to be repetitive I have SA running on my home machine for personal use (Win2000). Haven't noticed any more false positives but this would be worth testing. - Original Message - From: "Wil

Re: [SAtalk] Pyzor & DCC not found

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:44:46AM -0500, Smart, Dan wrote: > Great suggestion. Not sure why my paths went haywire, but I added: > |> debug: DCC is not available: dccproc not found > |> debug: Pyzor is not available: pyzor not found > |> > |> What could have happened? I didn't mess with either p

Re: [SAtalk] Two tests

Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have two rules that is not in my Spamassassin, so I thought I'd share > them. Could you please submit your rule suggestion as a bug report? That goes for everyone. :-) If new rules aren't put into the bug database, it's very likely that the sugg

Re: [SAtalk] End user options that would be useful

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, William H. Haller wrote: > Could PORN_WORDS be pulled out of the main distribution to a separate > file that could be checked for on upgrade and not written over? I don't imagine that would be a possibility but I really can't that with any certainty. However I wonder if it w

Re: [SAtalk] How SA tests scores have got

Matt Kettler wrote: The SpamAssassin scores are evolved using a genetic algorithm against a test corpus of hand-sorted spam and nonspam messages. The test corpus actually consisted of 168,612 messages last time the GA was run. If you look in the rules directory of the tarball you can see the S