[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) wrote:
> > Is SpamAssassin 2.50 testing for "real" 8-bit characters or
> > is it testing for quoted-printable / base64 encoded 8-bit
> > characters with a 7-bit representation? [...]
>
> The former.
I thought so, but I wanted to make sure.
> Unfortunately many MU
At Sat Feb 22 00:35:57 2003, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>
> MR> It's just the shame that these users didn't contribute towards the
> MR> mass-checks.
>
> Yes, but you have to remember that people use SA to not have to waste time on
> spam, and most of them don't want to "waste" the time they're sa
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But, do you send messages in Irish Gaelic? ;-)
I can't speak for Justin, but personally, I can only throw some umlauts
into the MUA alphabet soup. Gaelic is hard to top... :-)
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter
---
On 02/21/03 12:03 AM, Dan Hollis sat at the `puter and typed:
> How can I stop this? The Spamassassin 2.44 didn't do it.
>
> Now on spams, I get the headers rewritten so it appears to come from
> "127.0.0.1". This is very annoying.
>
> Example:
>
> Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] b
At 10:09 AM 2/22/2003 -0500, Steven W. Orr wrote:
I just installed SA-2.50 and I have a spam file I've collected with 125
messages.
1. I don't understand the difference between spam and ham? Can someone
point me to an explanation?
spam = unsolicited commercial email.. you know.. email you want to u
If there is a bondedsender on this list, please send me an e-mail...
I'm testing a rewritten client, and although everything seems to be ok it'd be
nice to get it verified in a non-test environment. =)
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/
zeek:
> [..] 2.41 scans take about 1-4 seconds, but the 2.50 are taking at
> least 30. Any ideas?
Same here: scanning the logs, 2.50 in fact seems to take a rough 30
seconds longer than 2.44 did.
It's not a perl 5.8/utf8 issue. I wonder what this can be - which check
is taking this long, and ho
Robin Lynn Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I want to use SA with amavis-new as a content filter with postfix.
> The only problem I'm seeing is a complaint when amavis starts that
> SA's user_prefs can't be created in /var/amavis.
Have you checked the directroy permissions? I use these:
# ls -l /va
"Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not to forget, most of the users of SA wouldn't even
> know how to contribute even if they wanted to.
Indeed. And another thing: some SMTP servers and MUAs, which I use because
my customers use them, do not allow me to extract a spam message which
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Shane Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 2:43 AM
Subject: [SAtalk] Re: Spamassassin 2.50 rewrites Received:
> Well, the default is now to not mark-up the Subject, but to use the safe
> report format. We opted to go for "transparent except when it conflicts
> with safety".
> Few things are worse than opening an malicious HTML spam with an unsafe
> mailer that reports to big spam brother that you exist
I
Is anybody experiencing rules not firing in the release of 2.50?
They seem to work in the CVS version I downloaded Feb 7
Regards
Greg
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge.
The most comprehensive and flexible c
I just upgraded to 2.5 and SA no longer appends the subject line with
"*SPAM*" as it used to.
Where can I configure SA to append *SPAM* to the subject line on
messages it determines to be spam?
So...
I found the lines in /Library/Perl/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm
That go like:
---
I just upgraded to 2.5 and SA no longer appends the subject line with
"*SPAM*" as it used to.
Where can I configure SA to append *SPAM* to the subject line on
messages it determines to be spam?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored
14 matches
Mail list logo
