Thomas Hurst wrote:
> I think maybe we should seperate the rules and the software. People
> who don't want to sit on the bleeding edge of the Perl may still like to
> stick to up to date rulesets, and it opens the road up for external apps
> to use it more easily.
Trouble is the rules which ge
This sounds most like my own preference too.
C
Donald Greer wrote:
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:53:43 -0600
> From: Donald Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Spam Assassin List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Stable 2.0 vs. fixes
>
> Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > The only thin
Yes, you should remove it.
C
brad wrote:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:08:28 -0800 (PST)
> From: brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Spam Assassin List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [SAtalk] My own follow up to procmail issue
>
>
> Should I remove the : after 0fw?
>
> :0fw:
> | spamc -f
>
> :0e
> {
Actually, I've been thinking strongly about tracking the total score from that
recipient, and the number of messages seen, then regressing the score for a new
message toward the mean. ie:
message9 comes in from userA
score message9 against patterns, etc.
retrieve total of scores for message1..me
Michael Moncur wrote:
> NEW EXCUSE_16:
> body EXCUSE_16 /received this.{1,10}in error[, ]* or/
Probably drop the "or" at the tail too...
> NEW EXCUSE_14:
> body EXCUSE_14 /(?:you do not|no longer) wish to receive
> (?:further|mail) /i
Again, I just dropped the
Gremlins, me mis-fixing it the first time, then checking in a new one to CVS a
day later... same thing :)
C
Michael Moncur wrote:
> I'll chalk this one up to gremlins.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.n
Just out of curiosity, does that /tmp/testmail exist? 74 is an IO error.
C
Mark wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:27:18 +0100
> From: Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Exit code
>
> Thanks for your reply; but no, that makes no differnce; I still get cod
Razor is optional. That is a "good" spamd startup. Did you run spamc there or
not yet?
C
Mark wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 23:39:09 +0100
> From: Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Re: Exit code
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Daniel Pittm
Were you using spamassassin or spamc/spamd greg? I believe spamassassin allows
you to have user rules, spamd does not. At least, that's what the docs say in
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf -- I agree that changing it from what's
documented to having a allow_user_rules local-conf parameter wo
It's in 2.1 -- the logging now prints score and threshold along with userid and
time taken for processing for every message passed through spamd.
C
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Just curious if anyone has started to work on some sort of logging
> through syslog that could be used to generate
Read the README. It's overridable with the '-c' flag to spamassassin. I just
realized I forgot to add that same functionality to spamd -- sigh. Please could
you file something in bugzilla on this -- I'm trying to stay away from SA coding
for a few days to get some real work done. When I com
It'll work on Mandrake too, and a variety of other platforms. But on at least
Mandrake, pidof spamd won't work because the process name is not spamd. I think
it's pretty easy to set argv[0] though in perl, isn't it? I'll reread the docs
and see if we can't just fix that so the process name i
Yes, you lose non-US locales working. The change was actually in response to a
question from someone who receives Russian email where the subject line is
/^[^a-z]*$/ but contains no capital letters, ie for Russian locale, it's not
/^[^[:lower:]]$/ -- of course it didn't completely fix his prob
How about SA 2.01 with razor 1.20? AFAIK nothing changed on the SA side -- they
must have moved/changed something in Razor.
C
Timothy Demarest wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:38:16 -0800
> From: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PRO
Michael C. Hanson wrote:
> >> Reverting to razor-agent 1.19 works fine:
> >>
> >> SA 2.1 with razor 1.19:
>
> So, would the suggestion in the mean time be to go back to 1.19? I'm having
> the same exact issues with Razor 1.20
Yes -- I suspect this is a razor bug probably where the Razor module
No Nels, things have changed recently -- I'll send you a separate email
describing how to submit your stuff.
C
Nels Lindquist wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:10:27 -0700
> From: Nels Lindquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Where to send mass-check output?
>
You probably have ~/.spamassassin/*.cf in your user directories which contain a
required_hits setting which is overriding anything you set elsewhere. User
prefs files are read last.
C
Woodworth, Eric wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:28:55 -0500
> From: "Woodworth, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes Darian, read the last few messages in the mailing list archives -- looks
like a problem loading the Razor module in razor 1.20 -- going back to razor
1.19 is a temporary solution until I figure out how they changes things.
C
Darian Rafie wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:34:33 -0600
> Fr
It's always best to release unstable code just before heading off on a long trip
:)
C
Timothy Demarest wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:48:43 -0800
> From: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Michael C. Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Re: pro
Actually, I don't think this is the case. You should be able to install them in
either order; SA will use Razor if it finds it at runtime, and not use it if it
doesn't find it (or you say -L).
> > ISTR hearing somewhere that SpamAssassin only enables Razor support if
> > Razor is there when yo
I think we will try to keep maintaining 5.005 compatibility for a while longer
yet, I just don't have it installed myself to realize when I've broken something
:)
If you're running perl 5.0x for now I'd suggest changing that one rule to just
use [a-z] instead of [:lower:] -- If you're using SA
Stick it in bugzilla and I'll get to it sometime. Though isn't it probably
easier (and more flexible) to get the pid in your shell, and have the shell
write it to a file if you want to do that?
C
Paul Traina wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:30:14 -0800
> From: Paul Traina <[EMAIL PROTECTED
In the corpus, LINE_OF_YELLING appears almost 9000 times in spam, and about 1300
times in nonspam. So I'm guessing that when it's in the nonspam, there are
other telltales that it's not really spam, and those rules have been assigned
-ve scores by the GA. There are only 562 false positives fr
I was aware of the stuff you're pointing out below. This is basically caused by
using the new evolver to do the scoring. Previously, scores were limited to the
range 0.01-5, now they are unlimited, and allowed to go -ve. A side effect of
this is that rules which are really non-discriminators
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Ummm... I'd be heavily inclined to set these spam scores to 0.01. It's not
> that I don't trust the GA, it's just that if these are the outputs, they
> aren't needed in the first place.
That's not necessarily the case. They might be needed to reduce false
positives. As
bject: Re: Re: [SAtalk] BSD rc.d script and HTML spam
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 03:49:38PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> > Stick it in bugzilla and I'll get to it sometime. Though isn't it probably
> > easier (and more flexible) to get the pid in your s
fer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Troubling new scores in 2.1 release
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
> > This isn't really a problem. It can actually be helpful too to allow
> >
Most of these have such low occurence rates in the corpus that they shouldn't be
allowed to vary their scores by the GA (or at least should be much more tightly
constrained). I'll take a look at adding such functionality to the code in
/masses.
Precicely because they're so infrequently seen t
alk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:46 PM
> Subject: Re: GA coming up with wacky scores? was Re: [SAtalk] Announcing 2.1
> release
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:28:07PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> > Duncan Findlay wrote:
> >
&
And people make fun of me when I send HTML email. I don't think I'd ever seen a
133 line attachment to convey one line of text. Vive Microsoft.
C
Mike Loiterman wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:54:52 -0600
> From: Mike Loiterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtal
CTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Troubling new scores in 2.1 release
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> > Yes, the large rule scores probably do make the system more sensitive to minor
> > variations in input. How
You can probably skip the "replace the daemons" part -- make install ought to do
that for you assuming you didn't move them to non-standard places. The install
will overwrite stuff in /usr/share/spamassassin/, but should leave /etc/mail
stuff untouched. So it'll replace your default .cf files
You didn't upgrade right -- you're still picking up an old .cf file.
C
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:20:51 -0400 (AST)
> From: Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Upgrading to spamproxyd in v2.1 ...
> Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 20
ate: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:13:04 -0500
> From: Greg Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Spamassassin-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: GA coming up with wacky scores? was Re: [SAtalk] Announcing
> 2.1 release
>
> On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
>
Arpi wrote:
> I doubt the non-spam folder is 100% spam-free.
> There are few (<100) hits of few rule which shouldn't be hit by non-spam
> at all. Maybe these mails should be manually verified...
I don't think it's fully spam-free either -- in fact there's one submitter of
nonspam in particular
Erik B. Berry wrote:
> > I was aware of the stuff you're pointing out below. This is basically caused by
> > using the new evolver to do the scoring. Previously, scores were limited to the
> > range 0.01-5, now they are unlimited, and allowed to go -ve. A side effect of
> > this is that rules
I'm leaning toward doing some extra sanity stuff in 2.11 or 2.2 -- just having
too much fun stirring up a lively discussion to have come out and said so
earlier :)
On the other hand though, I think it's possible that justin is a little *too*
conservative on letting the GA go crazy.
I think pr
Yeah, I think it probably might be better that way. I have to admit that I
haven't actually been monitoring sa-sightings at all. I've more or less been
relying on other people to notice anything particularly interesting there and
bring it to the attention of people on this list. Most of the
;
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Can you describe how to turn on logging? Are you talking about -D or
> - -s?
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:spamassassin-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> &
That's all you need to modify to have the GA pick it up for scoring. But
everyone who's submitted nonspam for the corpus needs to re-run their mass-check
to pick this new rule up. Once I have it in CVS that is.
C
Greg Ward wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:25:14 -0500
> From: Greg Ward <[EM
Yes, it's not ideally suited to non-[A-Za-z] people at the moment. I tried
fixing that somewhat with switching to [:lower:] but that means your locale
needs to be set right for the emails you're receiving, and also means that you
need perl >=5.6
C
Gunter Ohrner wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 200
The key to this rule is it triggers if there's no lower case in the subject.
It's somewhat misnamed. If you're seeing legitimate subject lines with no lower
case letters in them, please forward the subject lines so we can analyze and
adapt the rule. Thanks.
C
Evert Jan van Ramselaar wrote:
After all the bashing about scores <-5, I'd suggest scoring these around -2 or
-3: they're extremely easy to forge if you're a spammer.
C
Matthew Cline wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:40:41 -0800
> From: Matthew Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Filter ide
Well, the "fix" I adopted was to enter a feature request in bugzilla to add code
to make the report a text/plain MIME part stuck into the beginning of the email,
and leave the existing text/plain and/or text/html parts in there unchanged.
If you're interested, it's http://bugzilla.spamassassin.
Just changed it in CVS to:
header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[^a-z]*$/
C
Greg Ward wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:49:34 -0500
> From: Greg Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] rule SUBJ_ALL_CAPS not working right
>
> On 01 March 2002, Evert J
Yes, this happens when you have a user prefs file which tells SA not to do
standard things like subject_rewriting and stuff. I'll fix it sometime soon.
C
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:45:39 -0800
> From: Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: SAtalk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sub
Casey,
You can activate individual RBLs by changing their scores to something other
than 0 -- the best place to make the scoring change is in
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf but the example lines to change are in
/usr/share/spamassassin/50_scores.cf -- just copy them to local.cf and edit them
There is a bug in razor 1.20 which causes the library to fail to load for some
reason. Vipul is apparently travelling to India at the moment, so the current
solution is to downgrade to razor 1.19
C
Christopher Albert wrote:
> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:58:11 -0500
> From: Christopher Albert <
I'd add there are probably many users who are not sophisticated enough to
understand how to create filters, but are very happy just having the message
headers visibly tagged in their inbox. (eg my mom)
C
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:13:26 -0500
> From: Andrew Kohlsmith
I say why bother thinking? Hit 'D' and be done with it.
C
Michael Moncur wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:15:52 -0700
> From: Michael Moncur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Spamassassin-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [SAtalk] OT: a new game?
>
> This isn't really on topic, but there are a lot
I think the idea with GAPPY_TEXT is to catch these things. I suspect it's not
working right though.
C
Martin Bene wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:22:40 +0100
> From: Martin Bene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Spammers trying to adapt..
>
> Hi,
>
> spammers
Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> I'm very interested in getting spamd/spamc working in Sendmail with:
>- No restriction on message size
Um, are you sure you want that? I suspect you probably don't really. Very
large files are very unlikely to be spam. Very large files also take a very
long ti
Hmm, I had thought that section is generated during the merge process after the
GA generates new scores -- it's basically the scores which had been in the
previous scores file but which don't appear in the corpus and so were unmodified
by the GA (I think that's what it is anyway from memory).
Olivier Nicole wrote:
> It would be best to avoid ruining the slowly building good reputation
> of SA (attending Apricot yesterday, SA was cited as the best anti-spam
> product one could choose -- Apricot is a yearly international
> conference in Asia-Pacific).
I agree that baseless discriminati
I know nothing specific of the BSD sighandling bug -- I just believed others who
reported it, and others who provided a patch, and others who told me the patch
worked. I've been unable to install a decent version of perl on my fiancee's Ti
powerbook w/OSX to do any BSD testing myself.
C
Dunc
Patches happily accepted :)
Bugzilla feature requests too :)
C
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> It would be better to find a rule that just worked. For example, one
> method would be a TLD "whitelist". As spamassassin receives mail,
> there are two counters for each TLD. One is total messages and th
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>
> >Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>When sysadmins in those TLDs fix their relays, I'll be happy to hear
> >>them out.
> >>
> >The other problem with using this type of test in a spam corpus is
> >that you're using a small subset of g
Ok, thank. In CVS now.
Matthew Cline wrote:
> Here's a CVS patch which fixes the problem of the spam report being added
> before the first MIME part.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/
The best way of submitting them is to forward them as an attachment to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The downside of this method is that it's an open mailing list, so your
potentially private mail will be available to all via the mailing list archives,
so think before you submit.
C
David Cantrell wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Per the README I did the following:
>
> # perl Makefile.PL
> Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
Looks good so far
> # make
> make: *** No rule to make target spamassassin.raw', needed by spamassassin'.
> Stop.
That's very very odd. Are you in the distributio
Known bug in razor 1.20 which looks to have been released prematurely (there are
warnings about its state on the razor website). Downgrade to 1.19 to fix the
problem.
C
Rose, Bobby wrote:
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:10:10 -0500
> From: "Rose, Bobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Craig, I'd be curious to see this corpus -- where can I find it? I'd
> like to know, once and for all, how badly this kills the non-spam. Also,
> is there a testbed suite for checking the results against an arbitrary
> corpus?
The stuff in the /masses directory of the di
You can remove/add addresses to the AWL using spamassassin's "-R" and "-W"
flags. You can list the AWL contents using tools/check_whitelist
C
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 12:36:37 -0800
> From: Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: SAtalk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [SAtal
Rob McMillin wrote:
> >Both of them are code posted to BugTraq, one from Hong Kong and another
> >from .ar[1].
> >Footnotes:
> >[1] I can't recall where this is. Austria, maybe?
> Yes. See http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/country3166.html
You mean no, argentina!
C
_
I just pushed out the new scores (and a bugfix or two) as 2.11
The new scores are done by constraining the GA more, using Michael Moncur's
submitted scores as a starting point, and then hand-tweaking the output where
basically any -ve scores that came out but which only existed in the corpus as
I finally managed to get perl working right on my fiancee's OSX machine, so now
I can try and help with the various BSD complaints and stuff.
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassas
2 00:16:46 -0800
> From: Kelsey Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Good news for BSD SA-ers
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:41:33PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> > I finally managed to get perl working right
Because I need to get nonspam.log submissions from a variety of contributors,
I'm holding off on rescoring until we've made a bunch of changes for the next
release. We've already got about 5-10 rule changes in CVS, with a lot more in
bugzilla not-yet-done. Once we're getting pretty close to r
I think "BODY" is concise enough; beside most users probably don't know what
that means anyway.
C
Matthew Cline wrote:
> Also, if the hits threshold is passed, then SA report has "BODY:" put before
> the rule description, but now it would be "BODY OR SUBJECT:"
__
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Changed to /HUNZA.{1,80}BREAD/i, Thanks.
What the heck, I changed it to /HUNZA/i
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > If you did that, then the LINE_OF_YELLING rule will get invoked whenever the
> > SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is invoked.
>
> No, because it'll be:
>
> Subject: MAKE MONEY FAST!!!
>
> Which contains enough lower case letters to fail the test, I think.
One is enough.
C
___
I will certainly do the checking -- I would be a lot more wary though if the
merging were the other way around -- I think pretty well all of the body checks
if matched in the subject would be signs of spam. The converse is not
necessarily the case. Also, we're not removing any of the subject che
It's apparently due to a bug in Razor that was fixed in 1.20 which broke a
workaround in SA. To fix, you need to apply the following patch to SA 2.11.
I'd advise against getting the CVS version right now unless you like living very
much on the edge. A couple experimental changes went in in the l
Kelsey Cummings wrote:
>^Subject: SPAM: |\
My personal favorite.
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> > > Somebody else mentioned another perl program that looked like it was
> > > perhaps using the /dev/log syslog interface - you might
> > investigate that.
> > > If you don't need remote logging enabled, it's best to disable it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Charlie
Ok, you got me. I guess I don't. Stupid sendmail. Still, the other 2 should
be good enough.
C
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> How do you get it to bind only to 127.0.0.1? I don't see an option in
> syslogd or syslog.conf for that.
>
> > 1. Only bind to 127.0.0.1
> > 2. Firewall the
Jason A. Vest wrote:
> When the procmailrc file uses spamassassin -P it works fine. The e-mails
> come across with the score in the header.
>
> When I use spamc instead, there is no score in the header and spam does not
> get caught. I have checked the running processes at the time and there a
Greg Ward wrote:
> Can anyone give real-world results for AWL in SA 2.1 yet?
Well, since I'm clever-sounding, here's my take: It's wa better than 2.0x,
but not yet ideal. In the following discussion, I'll call the original
(2.0x) AWL AWL1, and the new one AWL2. The problems come in a few
Olivier Nicole wrote:
> I also noticed the following error message while mass-check was running:
>
> Malformed UTF-8 character (unexpected non-continuation byte 0xc3 after
> start byte 0xe4) in substitution iterator at
> ../lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 729, line 5890.
>
> Failed
It's better to not have dupes, unless those dupes are "naturally occurring". In
other words, you want the input to mass-check to be as close to what you're
expecting to see in nature as possible. Otherwise, you'll tend to weight rules
incorrectly.
C
Sean Harding wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar
A bit delayed in answering, sorry I've been ignoring [SAtalk] for a few days to
get some Real Work done. Matt, I agree the porn rules are pretty lame
currently. They need revamping. I've got a bug in bugzilla (#46) which was
reminding me to work on this, though it doesn't include the full detai
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I really think that we can get rid of those extra libraries. On Debian,
> spamc builds with just libc.
It will build fine on many systems (particularly linux) which have modern
libc/glibc's where the unix socket stuff is automatically linked by your linker.
However, th
That code is in CVS already -- might have made it into 2.1 or 2.11 -- don't
recall.
from perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf:
subject_tag STRING ...(default: *SPAM*)
Text added to the "Subject:" line of mails that are
considered spam, if "rewrite_subjec
Will do. I'll probably add a flag to let you say what directory you want
/var/run to be too (defaulting to /var/run) Duncan, could you file a bugzilla
on this and attach the patch file? Thanks.
C
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:20:12 -0500
> From: Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL P
I'd suggest that not routing the Exchange syncing messages through SA would be a
much, much better solution.
C
Jason Haar wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:58:26 +1300
> From: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] More falsies with SA in an M$ Exchange net
Rick, not positive this answers your questions, but:
you can currently make the report appear only in the headers, thereby not
breaking MIME stuff. Just use the report_header config file option.
If you're talking about http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18 that
will take a littl
André Somers wrote:
> Can anyone here
> 1) Tell me how I can get Redhat to startup Spamd?
Just use the RPM from http://www.hughes-family.org/spamassassin/
I built them on Mandrake, but they should work fine on RedHat also.
> 2) How I get Spamassassin to use Vipuls Razor?
Easy. Install SA. I
This is a well known problem, originally thought to be a razor bug, but in fact
was due to razor fixing a previous "bug" and breaking our workaround. Search
the mailing list archives for "my $/" and you should find the solution.
C
Karyl F. Stein wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:34:42 -0500
How are you invoking SA? It might be that if you're using procmail or something
like it, you're not locking mailboxes right during delivery, or something, and
messages are getting interleaved in weird ways.
C
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:00:09 -0500
> From:
Ray Curtis wrote:
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:50:22 -0500
> From: Ray Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] spamc
>
> > "eh" == ed henderson writes:
>
> eh> Look at the "-i" option for spamd. It defaults to only allowing con
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
> > This is the first, a bunch of rules to catch MLM and other "business
> > opportunity" spams.
>
> Almost anything that uses the word "downline", particularly in conjunction
> with "grow", "increase", "improve", etc., is in m
Configuration error I think.
1. You need to let your host know its own name for locking of the DB file can
work right. Try an entry in /etc/hosts
2. The AWL entries should indeed be stored in ~/.spamassassin/auto_whitelist.db,
though depending on what DB system AnyDBMFile picks up, the name of
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Yevgeniy Miretskiy wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >Is there a way to configure spamassassin to run say, header checks only,
> >or body checks only?
> >
> Not that I know of -- you could set all the non-header checks to zero in
> your user_prefs file.
...or the systemwide scores
Sean Harding wrote:
> On Fri Mar 15 at 02:38:01 PM, Rob McMillin wrote:
>
> > from the eggs-bacon-and-50-dollars-please dept.
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/15/1956200&mode=nested&tid=111
>
> There are lots of lawsuits going on here in Washington against spammers, and
> the spamme
Don't know -- probably the least used SA flag. Might be that NoMailAudit broke
this. Please file a bug report at http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/
C
Robert Abatecola wrote:
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:28:12 -0800
> From: Robert Abatecola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
If you have procmail installed, you can do something like this fairly easily
using formail -- see its manpage for details. (assuming you using mbox
mailboxes)
If you're using maildir or something similar, it's even easier.
In both cases, I'd strongly recommend using spamc instead of spamassas
Rob McMillin wrote:
> 1) Pick up the current CVS tree and set up a short-circuit rule that
> allows multiple tests.
Wow! Did someone implement that while I wasn't looking? Seriously though, I
don't think that's in CVS yet.
> 2) Use ~/.procmailrc to do a multipart test and skip SpamAssassin
Ray thanks for the detailed report. Very refreshing :)
Could you give one more piece of info though -- could you forward as an
attachment the mail from newsletter@gambling that "broke" spamc? Looks like
something with that particular message caused the problem, since the other you
quote appa
Soren,
Could you please add this at http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/ as a feature
request? Sounds like a great idea. Any idea on what the * in
&.rbl.cluecentral.net can expand to? I mean, if I have an IP address to look
up, there's no way to know the country code a lot of the time. Or can
AWL is the auto-whitelist. When your report came through scoring really high,
it got added to the auto-whitelist (actually auto-blacklist in this case). As
you continue to receive mail from there, your AWL score will drift to being
closer to -100 over time. You needn't worry about it, but if
1 - 100 of 543 matches
Mail list logo
