Re: [SAtalk] Increase in low scoring spam?

> > Here's the checks I use in my postfix header checks for HSM... They are > a real pain, but with these in place I don't recieve ANY HSM mails any > more (I used to get several per day). Maybe someone would like to put > these checks into SpamAssassin. > > /^From: .*@sendfree\.com/ REJECT B

Re: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: ML> X-Rot-Version: zvxr^nfpraqrapl(arg ML> ML> Could this ever be used for legitimate uses? Also - what sort of rule ML> would be best to blacklist an email with this in the header? Should it ML> just be points or should it be blacklisted

[SAtalk] Razor2 error

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is the razor2 server down? I'm getting a lot of these messages in my maillog: razor2 check skipped: No such file or directory IO::Socket::INET: Interrupted system call ...propagated at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/SpamAssassin/Dns.pm

[SAtalk] Did I not reply yesterday and/or today?

I don't really want to admit this, but some time late last night (local time, earlier than late if you're in the US) I managed to seriously screw up my mailfiltering... meaning that if I've ever sent you an e-mail and/or you replied to something I'd written, then late yesterday/today your e-mails

Re: [SAtalk] Roll back?

On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 08:26:29PM -0500, Sergey Lyssyak wrote: > Is there a way to uninstall it Sure, delete all the installed files. Typically they're under /usr/share/spamassassin, /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/*/Mail/SpamAssassin{,.pm}, and /etc/mail/spamassassin. > I have spamd started, but spam

Re: [SAtalk] Razor2 error

On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 09:34:38AM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote: > Is the razor2 server down? I'm getting a lot of these messages in my maillog: > razor2 check skipped: No such file or directory IO::Socket::INET: Interrupted >system call ...propagated at >/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mai

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, December 25, 2002 7:23 AM Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: > >> X-Rot-Version: zvxr^nfpraqrapl(arg >> >> Could this ever be used for legitimate uses? Al

[SAtalk] sh: turning off NDELAY mode

FreeBSD sage-american.com 4.7-STABLE FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE #0: Ever since I (just) installed SpamAss + SpamAss-Milter, I've been seeing this error pop up frequently. I'm not sure what is triggering it or what it means -- so, don't know where to look for the answer. Has anyone else seen this? The err

Re: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Wednesday, Dec 25, 2002, at 05:22 US/Pacific, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: ML> X-Rot-Version: zvxr^nfpraqrapl(arg When this was discussed a lil while ago I think people agreed on this being used by spammers to track people Yeah, soun

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: ML> How would I block it at the MTA? I assume you're talking about Sendmail. ML> What about a concise rule for SA? I'm extremely poor with regexp and any ML> help would be greatly appreciated. Would this do it: ML> ML> ML> X-Rot: =~ /zvx

Re: [Razor-users] Re: [SAtalk] Razor2 error

Theo, Yeah, there does still appear to be a major bug in the razor-agents with regards to full auto-rediscovery when a discovery server is unreachable. For now, just to ease the pain, I've put it back up on honor.cloudmark.com (216.52.13.90). However, if anyone has any proble

Re: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 01:32:50PM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote: > How would I block it at the MTA? I assume you're talking about > Sendmail. What about a concise rule for SA? I'm extremely poor with > regexp and any help would be greatly appreciated. Would this do it: Well, most MTAs allow for

[SAtalk] Re: [elektrosmog] hotspot directory

If it wasn't for me having the attentionspan of an over-caffeinated, sugar- hyped 3 year-old I might have remembered to make the point that an XML-based standard not tied to the firmware of the AP and created by open source-people easier can find its way into APs, then the other way around; and th

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:54 PM Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: > >> How would I block it at the MTA? I assume you're talking about >> Sendmail. What about a

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Mike Loiterman write: ML> Is there an advantage to using one or the other (procmail recipe vs SA ML> rule)? It seems odd to hard code such things into procmail, IMO. Seems ML> like SA rules are easier to implement, change or remove. For now, I'll use ML> this

Re: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > It depends on what you want to do; if you want to have hundreds of rules with > different scores, then SA is way superior, but if you've got a simple "hit this > one and die die die"-thing then why waste your servers time having

Re: [SAtalk] Re: [elektrosmog] hotspot directory

I'm an idiot... just ignore this. =) On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 the voices made Tony L. Svanstrom write: TLS> If it wasn't for me having the attentionspan of an over-caffeinated, sugar- TLS> hyped 3 year-old I might have remembered to make the point that an XML-based TLS> standard not tied to the fir

Re: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > It depends on what you want to do; if you want to have hundreds of rules with > different scores, then SA is way superior, but if you've got a simple "hit this > one and die die die"-thing then why waste your servers time having

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, December 25, 2002 4:46 PM Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: >> It depends on what you want to do; if you want to have hundreds of >> rules with diff

Re: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

> "TLS" == Tony L Svanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: TLS> I want to add one thing: SA could actually be a weakness... TLS> As one rule among many this sure spamsign might not be enough to TLS> tag the e-mail as spam, and even if it is you'll just end up with TLS> yet another e-mail you ha

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, December 25, 2002 4:46 PM Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: >> It depends on what you want to do; if you want to have hundreds of >> rules with diff

RE: [SAtalk] X-Rot version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, December 25, 2002 4:46 PM Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: >> It depends on what you want to do; if you want to have hundreds of >> rules with diff