-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
>At 03:40 PM 10/29/2003, David Hubbard wrote:
>>How can one look at the envelope sender of a message
>>in a rule? Is there a variable available to SA for
>>that?
>
>That's fundamentally impossible in SpamAssassin.. SA isn't provi
At 11:02 29/10/2003 -0600, Bill Polhemus wrote:
I am
running SA 2.60 installed from the RPMs on Red Hat 9, on an AMD 2100+
based system with a half-gig of RAM.
This has now happened for the second time.
Before when it happened, about two weeks ago, I figured it was just a
coincidence. Now, Im
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Gregory writes:
>But this duplicate went through (in chronological order):
> sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net(66.35.250.206)
> netmail00.services.quay.plus.net(212.159.14.218)
> mail.force9.net [212.159.10.2]
>De
At 10/29/03 10:53 AM , Chris Santerre wrote:
I have to change a rule and I want to do it nicely. So suggestions needed.
The rule is :
SUBJECT_XXX
and in it, it has naughty words. One of which it looks for is :
/pen.s/i
Which was just trying to get past obfuscations. Well, anything that
mentions:
"O
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:20:19PM -0800, Mark Schoonover wrote:
> that didn't work. I can see in my logs that ifspamh is detecting spam just
> fine, what's not happening is the headers being added to every spam email.
What happens if you run mail through SpamAssassin manually?
--
Randomly Gener
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>would be nice if it were a standard across all MTA's... something like
>X-Envelope-Helo:
>X-Envelope-Mail-From:
>X-Envelope-Rcpt-To:
Yes, it would ;)
BTW, HELO and RCPT TO are often reproduced in the Received headers.
However, MAIL FROM is no
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:20:19PM -0800, Mark Schoonover wrote:
>> that didn't work. I can see in my logs that ifspamh is detecting
>> spam just fine, what's not happening is the headers being added to
>> every spam email.
>
> What happens if you run mail through SpamAss
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 03:10:53PM -0800, Mark Schoonover wrote:
> provided, and it adds the headers just fine. Running spamd with -D, and I
> can see it detecting spam just fine, it just won't add the default headers.
hrm. if passing through spamc doesn't add the headers, I would look in that di
At 05:23 PM 10/29/2003, Greg Earle wrote:
I've run "truss" on the running "spamd" and I'm not seeing anything in
the truss output that points to where it's looking for the ndbm file
that it doesn't like. The only lines that are relevant to Bayes-named
files are:
18263: open("//.spamassassin/bayes
> From: Jason Staudenmayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> spamd is the demon spamc is the client
Right, it's called from procmailrc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin 571$ cat
/usr/local/etc/procmailrc
DROPPRIVS=yes
:0fw
| /usr/local/bin/spamc
EOF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote:
> Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:33 PM
> > Just at a rough guess, I would say that whoever resides on or near
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 'force9.net' has
> > something strange in their mail handling that is re-mailing articles?
> Per
Someone suggested a range to me awhile back when I asked about this,
sorry I cant give props to whoever it was.
/\bp[e3]n[\xCC-\xCF\xEC-\xEF][sz52]\b/i
Jennifer
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:spamassassin-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Radford
> Sent:
At 07:28 PM 10/29/2003, Riley J. McIntire wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin 578$ ps ax |grep [s]pamc
38938 ?? S 0:00.00 /usr/local/bin/spamc
So if I'm not badly mistaken I am using spamc. But not the right way? Is
there a problem with the procmailrc?
That procmailrc l
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> That procmailrc looks more-or-less fine to me..
It's what worked ok with 2.4x/fbsd 4.6.
> The only thing you need to do is make sure that spamd is
> running.. if spamd
> goes down, all your calls to spamc will do nothing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/p
At 08:48 PM 10/29/2003, Riley J. McIntire wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/ports 526$ ps auwx |grep [s]pamd
nospam 184 0.0 1.3 21236 20920 ?? Is 20Oct03 3:51.50
/usr/local/bin/spamd -a -c -d -u nospam -H (perl5.00503)
Is the -H parameter passed to spamd with no parameter? or is it just being
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/ports 526$ ps auwx |grep [s]pamd
> >nospam 184 0.0 1.3 21236 20920 ?? Is 20Oct03 3:51.50
> >/usr/local/bin/spamd -a -c -d -u nospam -H (perl5.00503)
> Is the -H parameter passed to spamd with no parameter? or is
>
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At 03:40 PM 10/29/2003, David Hubbard wrote:
> >How can one look at the envelope sender of a message
> >in a rule? Is there a variable available to SA for
> >that?
>
> That's fundamentally impossible in SpamAssassin.. SA isn't
> provided the env
Hi,
I have been running some performance tests on spamc/spamd and I wanted to make sure my
results were consistent with expected performance. All tests were run on:
Dual 2.8 Ghz Xeon (4 logical CPUs) box w/2GB RAM
Redhat 8.0, Spam Assassin 2.60
I've been using the spamc/spamd combination.
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Kevin Lewis (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code?
Just to followup the user's home dir path that spamd runs as, "nospam"
wasn't properly update when the users were moved. doh! Fixing that
allows the Subject rewrite to work.
(The "working directory" error below was just sudo complaining that I
was using a variable in a command path ($PWD) and had
101 - 120 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
