hi
I get the following message when I do a 'make test' [SA 2.6, RedHat 9. Is it ok to go
ahead and install SA "as is"?
t/spamd_maxsize.ok
t/spamd_parallelok
t/spamd_port...
I upgraded our inbound relay from 2.55 to 2.60 last night. Did the
import/rebuild of the bayes DB and this morning I have the following in the
/home/filter/.spamassassin folder:
-rw---1 filter filter 4.2M Sep 23 21:03 auto-whitelist
-rw---1 filter filter61K Sep 2
Hi,
Sorry if these questions sound dumb, but being an absolute newbie to
spamassassin I'm having a hard time setting it up:
I tried to install spamassassin using the Perl-interface (CPAN) on a
Redhat8 system; as per the "INSTALL"-file:
# perl -MCPAN -e shell
and then
install Mail::SpamAssassin
hiya.
i'm not sure if this is right place to post this problem report, but
it's the only place i could find, and i didn't find anything about this
in the list archives.
okay, here's the problem:
ever since i upgraded from 2.55 to 2.60, i've had lots of problems
with mailing lists getting marked
At Tue Sep 23 21:45:13 2003, Renato G. Troitino wrote:
>
> Just curious... when a message get enought points to be a spam, it should be
> set autolearn=yes right? So why all the messages gets autolearn=no even
> getting 15 hits???
Learning spam as ham (or ham as spam) is really bad. If you sta
Well they were being passed straight to the user since the courier
mailfilter file was picking them out due to the size being > than 24kb
so there was no chance for SA to parse them.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Daniel Bird
Sent: Tuesday
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:34:36 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 19:34, Michael W.Cocke wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:29:38 -0700, you wrote:
>[snip]
>> Running without a virus check in this day and age is probably more
>> dangerous than unprotected sex - you're more certain to catch
>> so
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 09:42 CET Ewald Jenisch wrote:
> Warning: I could not locate your pod2man program. Please make sure,
> your pod2man program is in your PATH before you execute 'make'
http://spamassassin.taint.org/faq/index.cgi?req=show&file=faq04.014.htp
Cheers,
Malte
-
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 19:28 CET Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:48 AM + Jim
> If this is the recommended configuration, then I would suggest that 2.61
> change the spec file to make use of this in RPM-based installations.
The problem is that currently using th
I use a MS OS desktop at home (at work I use Solaris and Redhat Linux)and
have not put a virus scanner on it in
over 3 years, and have not caught a virus yet.
I HAVE received them but I choose not to use security risk software such as:
Internet Explorer or any version of Outlook. I also make grea
This has seemed to work for me as well. Like you pointed out the ones
that have no .exe still manage to get in.
Scott
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:46, Dale Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:37:27AM +1200, Simon Byrnand elucidated:
> >
> > Although I havn't tried it, I would say that teac
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 23:00 CET Mike Loiterman wrote:
> > Start spamd with the "--socketpath /path/to/spamd.sock" option and
> > then call spamc with the "-U /path/to/spamd.sock" option. Test,
> > adjust, repeat...
>
> Can I just:
>
> touch /var/tmp/spamd.sock
> chmod 777 /var/tmp/spamd.sock
While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
and what I can do?
Checking if your kit is complete...
Warning: the following files are missing in your kit:
INSTALL
Please inform the author.
Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
M
Hello,
Has anybody used Postini (postini.com) spam scanning software?
I'm getting pressured from my management to evaluate postini
(as a potential replacement to SA), and would like to hear
from people who might have used this software...
--
Eugene Miretskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
INVISION.COM,
> "MRC" == Mark R Cervarich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MRC> Is downloading the tarball and installing it myself fundamentally
MRC> different than just doing the install from CPAN?
All CPAN does it automatically fetch, extract, make, test, and install
the module and any listed dependencies.
I just want to clarify this fact. I have seen contradictory statements
posted. I am going to have users forward received spam and ham to
respective accounts. Do I need to separate the original message from
the forwarded message? I can understand not having to separate a
message flagged as spam
I have Spamassassin working with postfix. I have a few aliases setup and
notice that their mail is not checked by spamd. Does anyone know if this
can be done?
--
Thank You,
Jerry Carter
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welco
Hello again,
I got that last email a little wrong. I should have added the output. Here
it is...
Makefile out-of-date with respect to
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/Config.pm
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/config.h
Cleaning current config before rebuilding Ma
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 12:28:59AM +1100, Trevor Rhodes wrote:
> While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
> and what I can do?
It looks like you're missing the INSTALL file. Where did you get the
tarball from? I'd redownload it from http://spamassassin.org/rel
I tried to use it. It was expensive, as they were going to charge us per
email box. Also it required that some qmail patches be applied to the
qmail source tree in order for it to work. I use qmail-ldap, and the patch
would not apply after applying the LDAP patch, and the LDAP patch would
not a
> "BA" == Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BA> No, not unless Ron does something crazy like blacklisting 0.0.0.0/0. I
BA> expect he'd give people fair warning first if he was going to do that. I
BA> also expect it's going to take more than a DDoS to take out monkeys.com
BA> permanently
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 00:28:59 +1100 Trevor Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
> and what I can do?
Looks like make can't find INSTALL. Try
touch INSTALL
followed by
make clean
perl Makefile.PL
make
and see if
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:47 am, you wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 12:28:59AM +1100, Trevor Rhodes wrote:
> > While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to
> > why and what I can do?
>
> It looks like you're missing the INSTALL file. Where did you get the
> tarball from?
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Trevor Rhodes wrote:
> While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
> and what I can do?
You could try resetting your system clock. Your mail had a Date: header
of January 2, 2002.
---
This
On Tuesday 01 January 2002 15:03 CET Trevor Rhodes wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I got that last email a little wrong. I should have added the output.
> Here it is...
>
> Makefile out-of-date with respect to
> /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/Config.pm
> /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-th
At 10:30 AM 9/24/03 -0400, Jon Fraley wrote:
I just want to clarify this fact. I have seen contradictory statements
posted. I am going to have users forward received spam and ham to
respective accounts.
Don't, unless they can forward the entire original message, complete with
original headers, a
Good morning!
Hopefully, this is a simple question.
Which is the most efficient/effective piece of
software? Mimedefang or Mailscanner.
Running RH7.3/Sendmail/Spamassassin/Sophos Antivirus 1.2 Ghz 1.0 gb
RAM About 900 mailboxes.
Thanks a million!
John
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Vivek Khera wrote:
> All CPAN does it automatically fetch, extract, make, test, and install
> the module and any listed dependencies.
That's not _quite_ all. It may also have stored system configuration
defaults, like a non-standard PREFIX or the value of UNINST etc., which
Bob,
Did as you suggested Bob, but still ended up with the following. Thanks for
trying though.
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
Makefile written by ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.03
==> Your Makefile has been rebuilt. <==
==> Please rerun the make c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Lill wrote:
> I'm subscribed to some mailing lists that, for whatever reason, carry
> a lot of spam. Before the Bayes went into spamassassin, it caught most
> of this. Ever since, more's getting through, all with a BAYES_00
> score. I'm guessing i
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> The message must be _exactly_ the same as it originally was, headers and
> all. Even very subtle changes can cause the bayes engine to learn things
> you might not expect. You want it to learn about ham and spam, not about
> forwarded message formats.
I just installed 2.60 and while checking my install noticed the following:
>debug: DCCifd is not available: no r/w dccifd socket found.
I saw in the change logs that support was now built into SA and was
wondering it it was worth the effort to get it running...
Ed Kasky
Los Angeles, CA
. . .
On Sep 24, 2003 at 10:47, Yevgeniy Miretskiy wrote:
>Has anybody used Postini (postini.com) spam scanning software?
>I'm getting pressured from my management to evaluate postini
>(as a potential replacement to SA), and would like to hear
>from people who might have used this software...
I would,
Has anyone used ActiveState's (recently bought by Sophos)
PureMessage anti-spam package? If so, what did you think of it? Or
even if you've heard anything about it, I'd be interested in that too.
Chris
---
This sf.net email is spo
> Well they were being passed straight to the user since the courier
> mailfilter file was picking them out due to the size being > than 24kb
> so there was no chance for SA to parse them.
>
hi
Not sure if the rules we have added in local.cf are wrong. We are using SA+procmail
header LATEST_N
I am about to upgrade fro SA2.6 (pre-rc1) to SA2.6 final release. I see
in the docs that if I want to continue to use Bayes, I have to install
DB_File and run "sa-learn --import".
Ok, doesn't sound too bad.
But where do I get DB_File? (RH 8)
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 12:00:55PM -0500, Chris Barnes wrote:
> But where do I get DB_File? (RH 8)
I would think RH8 either already installed it for you (rpm -q
perl-DB_File), or you could grab the RPM.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"The Internet treats censorship like damage and routes around
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 12:00:55PM -0500, Chris Barnes wrote:
> I am about to upgrade fro SA2.6 (pre-rc1) to SA2.6 final release. I see
> in the docs that if I want to continue to use Bayes, I have to install
> DB_File and run "sa-learn --import".
>
> Ok, doesn't sound too bad.
>
> But where do
This may be a little difficult to explain but here goes.
All of my systems are behind a nat box. My mail server OS is linux,
using qmail/vpopmail/mysql procmail etc.etc..
Upgraded to Spamassassin V 2.60 rc6 (the day before the final release)
My daughter's system is on the same network as my mai
I'm running spamd as root on a dedicated Linux host accepting
connections from spamc elsewhere on a LAN. It is desireable
in this application to allow spamc to setuid to user IDs as
it processes email.
I'm seeing messages in my logfile containing (wrapped for
readability):
razor2 check skippe
Since there have been "significant changes in BAYES" for 2.60, when I
upgrade to 2.60 from 2.55:
- will the upgrade keep my old BAYES database (in DB_file format)?
- would I have to do any rebuilding/reindexing/whatever of the database?
- Did anybody have problems with BAYES after upgrading to
Exactly how do you use this test. Is there supposed to be a file
with a list that it looks at?
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
S
> -Original Message-
> From: BG Mahesh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?
>
>
> > Well they were being passed straight to the user since the
> > courier m
A new approach to DNSBL might be considered, where there is a peer-to-peer
sharing (authentication, scoring whatever) that mirrors content --
something of that nature, whereby the hackers would basically have to DDos
the entire internet to prevent its use. Not sure how such a framework
could
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:spamassassin-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Blaise
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:44 AM
> To: 'Spam Assassin'
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Alt spam scanning products
>
>
> Has anyone used ActiveState's (recently bo
At Wed Sep 24 08:32:18 2003, Steve Simitzis wrote:
> ever since i upgraded from 2.55 to 2.60, i've had lots of problems
> with mailing lists getting marked as spam. specifically, any yahoo
> group mailing list i'm on is getting treated as spam.
>
> i looked into this further, and it seems that th
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:10:00PM +0200, Jim Knuth wrote:
> is the version SA 2.60 only for perl 5.0.8?
err. 5.8.0 perhaps?
anyway, 2.60 will run on anything 5.005 or later. (tested on 5.005, 5.6.0, 5.6.1, and
5.8.0)
2.70, however, will only be 5.6.1 and later.
--
Randomly Generated Tagli
I installed spam assassin, received no info about a password, no
instructions, etc. and I paid for the supported version. It asks for
the location of prefs.js file, what do I put in here? Pat
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Wel
On Mi 24 Sep 2003 06:21:34p Ed Kasky wrote:
> >debug: DCCifd is not available: no r/w dccifd socket found.
Hi,
I got this, too despite a running dccifd:
Sep 24 16:03:23 router dccifd[861]: 1.2.7 listening to
/etc/apache/mail/dcc/dccifd
srw-rw-rw- 1 root root0 Sep 24 20:04 dc
Hi !
I'm using SpamAssassin 2.60 with autolearning.
Today I received one of the usual penis pill advertisments, which triggered:
| X-Spam-Flag: YES
| X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
| cslmail.nrw.net
| X-Spam-Report:
| * 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bay
* Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> razor2 check skipped:
> Bad file descriptor Insecure dependency in connect while
> running setuid at /usr/lib/perl/5.6.1/IO/Socket.pm line 108,
> line 1438.
> Versions:
> Perl 5.6.1 (Debian Woody stock, will upgrade if I must)
> Mail::Spa
How about as zone files on SourceForge? We could get updates via "cvs
update". Maybe even via "rsync -e ssh", if there is a way of doing that
with SourceForge.
This would force spammers who want to attack us, to attack the entire open
source community.
Wrolf Courtney
Donovan Data Systems, I
I got your message, i have commented out 2 lines (12 & 43) in my master.cf
Now everything except SA is running fine again.. no copies, no parroting.. I
never meant to say SA could send mail just that when i enabled it
(uncommented the 2 lines and commented the original "smtp") wierd stuff
started h
On Mi 24 Sep 2003 09:00:17p Dan Wilder wrote:
> razor2 check skipped:
Hi,
did you apply the Razor patches contained in SA 2.60?
Greetings, Bernd
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/s
Hallo Theo Van Dinter,
am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003, 21:39:01, schriebst Du:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:10:00PM +0200, Jim Knuth wrote:
>> is the version SA 2.60 only for perl 5.0.8?
> err. 5.8.0 perhaps?
> anyway, 2.60 will run on anything 5.005 or later. (tested on 5.005, 5.6.0, 5.6.1
Hallo SA-List,
is the version SA 2.60 only for perl 5.0.8?
--
Viele Grüße, Best regards
Jim Knuth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Zitat
--
Im Italienischen gibt es nur vier Worte die mit "h" beginnen.
---
This sf.net email is sponsor
how do I turn up the MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott Comboni
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:07 AM
To: Dale Harris
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] why is sa not catching the microsoft emails ?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:43:26PM -0400, Jon Fraley wrote:
> It should be looking in /home/stopspam/.spamassassin. Can anyone tell
> me how to rectify this?
The debug output is from the initial compilation run and can be ignored.
As long as the next message you push through uses the right path.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:53:36PM -0500, Genchev, Sergei wrote:
> Since there have been "significant changes in BAYES" for 2.60, when I
> upgrade to 2.60 from 2.55:
>
> - will the upgrade keep my old BAYES database (in DB_file format)?
> - would I have to do any rebuilding/reindexing/whatever
I tried to do an "install DB_File" and got an error. It say:
"version.c", line 30.10: 1506-296 (S) #include file not found"
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, mikea wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 12:00:55PM -0500, Chris Barnes wrote:
> > I am about to upgrade fro SA2.6 (pre-rc1) to SA2.6 final release. I
OR worse they'll attack SourceForge!!!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 16:04
> To: SATalk list
> Cc: SATalk list
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SPAM, BLOCK: Death of monkeys.com D
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:40:38PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:07:56PM -0700, Mark R. Cervarich wrote:
> > Return-Path to be from a domain that I whitelist. I thought
> > SpamAssassin was smart enough to not be fooled by that? Without that
> >
> > -Start Exerp
I am using SA site-wide. I am starting spamd with:
/usr/bin/spamd -D -c -a -u stopspam
I am getting this output after upgrading to 2.60:
debug: using "/tmp/spamd-28791-init/.spamassassin" for user state dir
debug: bayes: no dbs present, cannot scan:
/tmp/spamd-28791-init/.spamassassin/bayes_tok
Hello.
I've installed SA 2.60 and sent mail from a hotmail
account always triggers FAKE_HELO_HOTMAIL
From the logs:
ipname helo
RELAY TEST: 65.54.245.31 [65.54.245.31] hotmail.com
RELAY TEST: 65.54.245.124 [65.54.245.124] hotmail.com
RELAY TEST: 65.54.245.152
At Wed Sep 24 21:36:02 2003, Steve Simitzis wrote:
> i would be happy to. i've attached an example to this email.
>
> you'll note that the message contains ads for toner in the footer
> and also gets a few points for the mention of "free membership!",
> and that's all well and good. however, no p
I tried to check time timelog to look at performance and check hit rates
for dcc, pyzor, razor, etc.
Only to find it has disappeared on me since I last used it.
It is still in the man page though
And the config options page was broken at SA.org
debug: Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin confi
Has anyone noticed any of the default RBL's in 2.55 being down lately?
Seeing a lot of 13 second times for processing, and was wondering if
anyone knew of any problems with the default RBL's.
Thanks.
Rob
---
This sf.net email is sponsored b
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:53:36PM -0500, Genchev, Sergei wrote:
> > Since there have been "significant changes in BAYES" for 2.60, when I
> > upgrade to 2.60 from 2.55:
> >
> > - will the upgrade keep my old BAYES database (in DB_file format)?
> >
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:02:16PM -0500, Ron Roskens wrote:
> > You should read the release announcement. It's also in the
> > build/2.60_change_summary file.
>
> This file does not exist in the 2.60 tar file retrieved from CPAN.
hrm. indeed. have to fix that for 2.61.
--
Randomly Generate
Ben M. VanWagner wrote:
>
> Has it been replaced ???
Hi,
it's removed in the last release canditate I think. Check the release
notes.
Klaus
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_
Forrest Aldrich wrote:
A new approach to DNSBL might be considered, where there is a
peer-to-peer sharing (authentication, scoring whatever) that mirrors
content -- something of that nature, whereby the hackers would
basically have to DDos the entire internet to prevent its use. Not
sure h
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:45:59PM +, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
> On Mi 24 Sep 2003 09:00:17p Dan Wilder wrote:
>
> > razor2 check skipped:
>
> Hi,
>
> did you apply the Razor patches contained in SA 2.60?
>
> Greetings, Bernd
Just tried them. Works like a charm. Thanks!!
--
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:21:50PM +0200, Marcus Frings wrote:
> This is not a help, this is just to confirm that you are not the only
> one because on my woody box I exactly get the same error after upgrading
> to 2.60.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I'd just upgraded to 2.60
when I noticed t
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 15:19, Martin Radford wrote:
> At Wed Sep 24 08:32:18 2003, Steve Simitzis wrote:
i have to say that in over 200 spams i have not seen a false positive
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek hea
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:45:59PM +, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
> On Mi 24 Sep 2003 09:00:17p Dan Wilder wrote:
>
> > razor2 check skipped:
>
> Hi,
>
> did you apply the Razor patches contained in SA 2.60?
>
> Greetings, Bernd
No, unless installing SA 2.60 from CPAN somehow applies those.
Which
willie wrote:
I use a MS OS desktop at home (at work I use Solaris and Redhat
Linux)and have not put a virus scanner on it in
over 3 years, and have not caught a virus yet.
How do you KNOW you haven't? ;-)
I HAVE received them but I choose not to use security risk software
such as:
Internet E
Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm seeing messages in my logfile containing (wrapped for
> readability):
>
> razor2 check skipped:
> Bad file descriptor Insecure dependency in connect while
> running setuid at /usr/lib/perl/5.6.1/IO/Socket.pm line 108,
> line 1438.
Read the README
Hi,
Running redhat8 with qmail and spamassassin as well as trying to get
razor2 working.
If I look in my log files, I have entries like this:
Sep 24 19:04:16 sandbox spamd[14130]: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 40105
Sep 24 19:04:16 sandbox spamd[15609]: info: setuid to qscand suc
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 08:26, willie wrote:
[big snip]
> >On top of that, don't assume that linux can't catch something... It's
> >happened before, it will happen again.
I don't believe that any Unix-like variants have ever caught a *virus*
(except in a labratory). If you have evidence to the con
At 07:57 PM Wednesday, 9/24/2003, Bernd Kuhls wrote -=>
On Mi 24 Sep 2003 06:21:34p Ed Kasky wrote:
> >debug: DCCifd is not available: no r/w dccifd socket found.
Sep 24 16:03:23 router dccifd[861]: 1.2.7 listening to
/etc/apache/mail/dcc/dccifd
My netsat:
unix 2 [ ACC ] STREAM LIS
Hi Everyone,
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I just saw a message (from this list
in fact) which scored as follows:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_HOTMAIL
Sorry if this ends up being a double post.
Quick question. I just upgraded to 2.60 and have been running various
versions for close to 6 months. I have an issue where when the mail is
delivered to my smtp server and filtered through MimeDefang -> SpamAssassin
the score (in this case) was 4.62
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Terry Milnes wrote:
> This may be a little difficult to explain but here goes.
>
> All of my systems are behind a nat box. My mail server OS is linux,
> using qmail/vpopmail/mysql procmail etc.etc..
>
> Upgraded to Spamassassin V 2.60 rc6 (the day before the final release)
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Johnson
> I don't believe that any Unix-like variants have ever caught a
> *virus*(except in a labratory). If you have evidence to the
> contrary, I'dlove to hear it.
http://search.symantec.com/custom/us/query.html
http://www.sophos.com/search/index.c
Hi all!
First of all I want to mention that I am not subscribed to this
list. If you want to contact me, please answer directly.
I really like SpamAssassin, but while using it there was a minor
glitch I stumbled upon.
Wanting to whitelist a silly WindowsNT-Machine (you don't want to know
details
--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:13 PM +0100 Daniel Bird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A P2P DNSBL? interesting. I've also thought about this a little since the
> death of Monkeys but also have no idea about how this would be implimented,
> but certainly the model of something like direct conn
Quick question. I just upgraded to 2.60 and have been running various
versions for close to 6 months. I have an issue where when the mail is
delivered to my smtp server and filtered through MimeDefang -> SpamAssassin
the score (in this case) was 4.623:
Sep 24 12:30:41 odie sendmail[10140]: h8
Since you didn't post the e-mail, what rules got hit (either time), or
how you've got SA set up (network tests enabled? DCC? Razor?), it's
impossible to say why you got two different scores -- but it's not too
uncommon for the same message tested at different times to get different
scores, fo
During my first test run at an install, I got the following:
t/spamd_allow_user_rulesspamd start failed: log: Insecure directory in
$ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at /usr/opt/perl5/lib/5.6.0/Cwd.pm
line 85.
Not sure what it means. I'm running AIX 5.1.
--
Jack Gostl [EMAIL PR
I have razor versions
razor-agents-2.36
razor-agents-sdk-2.03
I tried applying the patch for the spamassassin setuid issue with razor
and get the following:
patching file Client/Config.pm
Hunk #1 succeeded at 383 with fuzz 2 (offset 10 lines).
patching file Client/Core.pm
Hunk #1 FAILED at 216
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 19:26, Larry Gilson wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ron Johnson
> > I don't believe that any Unix-like variants have ever caught a
> > *virus*(except in a labratory). If you have evidence to the
> > contrary, I'dlove to hear it.
>
> http://search.symantec.c
> But you are missing the point, mail is being identified as
> RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK when it is the recipient who is in the dial up block,
> not the sender.
>
> The sender is on the rogers network using aloak smtp/pop3 servers,
> sending a message to a domain that is in the dial up block.
>
> The messa
At 19:47 24/09/2003 -0400, Gerry Doris wrote:
SA 2.60 is giving a dynablock hit a wopping 2.62 score!!! It isn't really
a problem that your SA is hitting this rule (you can always turn it off).
The real problem is that everyone else's SA 2.60 is doing the same. If
they retain the default 7 spam
But you are missing the point, mail is being identified as
RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK when it is the recipient who is in the dial up block,
not the sender.
The sender is on the rogers network using aloak smtp/pop3 servers,
sending a message to a domain that is in the dial up block.
The message should N
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:27:57PM -0400, Stephen Reese elucidated:
> how do I turn up the MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE?
>
check out your .spamassassin/user_prefs file, it has directions in
there. But it is basically like:
score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 6.0
or some such.
Dale
-
> At 19:47 24/09/2003 -0400, Gerry Doris wrote:
>
>
>>SA 2.60 is giving a dynablock hit a wopping 2.62 score!!! It isn't
>> really
>>a problem that your SA is hitting this rule (you can always turn it off).
>>The real problem is that everyone else's SA 2.60 is doing the same. If
>>they retain the
"Dan Didier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried applying the patch for the spamassassin setuid issue with razor
> and get the following:
>
> patching file Client/Config.pm
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 383 with fuzz 2 (offset 10 lines).
> patching file Client/Core.pm
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 216.
> 1 out
Here's the issue:
System: Running SA 2.54, FreeBSD Unix, Berkeley DB 1.85
(Hash, version 2):
Problem: When bayes_toks grows to more than 5K, it becomes
corrupted during sa-learn and ultimately trashed or lost.
My solution: Set bayes_expiry_max_db_size to lower level to
force expiry, so that baye
Rob Mangiafico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone noticed any of the default RBL's in 2.55 being down lately?
> Seeing a lot of 13 second times for processing, and was wondering if
> anyone knew of any problems with the default RBL's.
Yes. Osirusoft is down.
I recommend upgrading to 2.6
If there are recieved-from headers from the recipient's mail system,
then they may get checked in the rbl's depending on how deep they are.
The recipient can use the 'trusted_networks' option that was added in
2.60 to get around that problem. I don't have the start of the thread on
the machine
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
