Re: [SAtalk] Acronym Update

--On Friday, January 16, 2004 12:13 PM -0600 Carl Chipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > LART > UBE/UCE Try http://www.jargon.org/ for LART. (It's a wonderful and fun site, hence I won't spoil it for you.) UBE/UCE is unsolicited bulk/commercial email. --

Re: [SAtalk] Re: Ann: "Rules De Jour": An automated way to keep up with the latest rulesets

--On Saturday, January 17, 2004 3:54 PM -0600 Scott A Crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: NTP taught this lesson of this mistake. Systems getting hundreds of queries a minute that haven't run NTP in 13 years. And the linksys DDOS attack on UWisc. Proper use of DNS should deal with this. The supplie

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.62 is released!

--On Monday, January 19, 2004 11:07 AM -0600 Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > rpm -ta SOURCES/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.62.tar.gz That should be rpmbuild, not rpm. In later versions of rpm the installer no longer automagically calls the builder, and you have to invoke it directly. You can als

Re: [SAtalk] mail aliases and SA-learn

--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:56 AM -0600 Kenneth Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) The server has been configured in such a way that mail users shell to > /dev/null Just curious why you do that instead of using /bin/false or /sbin/nologin?

Re: [SAtalk] Sendmail and spamassassin

--On Friday, January 23, 2004 12:01 PM +0200 Extech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone please direct me to a How to... Document on installing spamassassin with sendmail. Two approaches, depending on whether sendmail is on a gateway. You can run SA from your delivery agent, such as procmail, j

Re: [SAtalk] mail aliases and SA-learn

--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:17 PM -0600 Kenneth Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That the mail box users are going to /dev/null have been a practice from the server administrators before me. I don't know the original reason for why /dev/null was selected, however I can surely change it i

Re: [SAtalk] Help! (Dumb noob questions about upgrading and other stuff)

--On Friday, January 23, 2004 10:18 AM -0800 JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But now I'm faced with the daunting task of upgrading (via CPAN on RH 7.2, and I don't know squat about CPAN) from 2.55. 7.2 has been end-of-lifed, so you might think about starting from scratch. I'd suggest getting a spa

Re: [SAtalk] stats

--On Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:44 PM -0600 Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/spamassassin/trunk/tools/?root=A > pache-SVN Just tried this out on Fedora Core 1 with SA 2.63 and I had to use "--start yesterday" to get output. Otherwise I see t

Re: [SAtalk] Re: [SA-Announce] SpamAssassin 2.60-rc2 released!

--On Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:42 PM -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, this is a GDBM issue. There's a bug already open for it, and we're discussing what to do about it. Basically GDBM is stupid and doesn't allow control chars in the token keys. Which kind of sucks. ;) Wha

Re: [SAtalk] Re: heads-up: 2.60 will drop support for bayes dbs innon-DB_File formats

--On Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:14 AM -0500 Joe Breu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perl module. It can be found on CPAN (install DB_File). For RPM-based systems, choose one of these: --

[SAtalk] Address in subject line

I see a lot of spam in which the first token on the subject line is something like "ken," or "shiva,", and I've never seen ham that does that. Are there any rules in 2.60 to catch that pattern, in which a token from the recipient address shows up as a greeting in the subject line? -

RE: [SAtalk] redhat 8 rpm packages missing some files?

--On Saturday, September 06, 2003 11:51 PM -0500 Bill Polhemus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do what I did: Compile from the tarball sources. It's not that tough (can't > be if even I can do it). Note that for RPM users, the SRPM is essentially the same as the tarball, but provides the distro-spec

Re: [SAtalk] I want SA to handle mailinglists. Need some creativity here.

--On Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:40 PM -0400 "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're right. It's hooked up via aliases in the aliases file. I happen to > be using Majordomo2. But my understanding is that *all* mailinglist > managers use the aliases file as the hook. I will ask the m

RE: [SAtalk] RH 9.0 issues

--On Saturday, September 06, 2003 11:49 PM -0500 Bill Polhemus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The RPMs are good, but sometimes I just don't have the patience to wait till > someone comes out with them (and I don't the inclination to learn how to > make SRPMs myself). > > I like compiling from Sourc

Re: [SAtalk] Fitz, an add-on to Spamassassin

--On Sunday, September 07, 2003 7:46 PM +0200 Thorsten Sick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - The results of the AI alone are as good as Spamassassin's results. > Combined it is therefor better. What would make the combined result better? What does Fitz do different from SA? -

Re: [SAtalk] Fitz, an add-on to Spamassassin (fwd)

Forwarding this back to the list, as I think the technical details would be of general interest. Forwarded Message Date: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:57 AM +0200 From: Thorsten Sick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [

Re: [SAtalk] Re: [SA-Announce] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc4 released

--On Friday, September 12, 2003 12:07 PM -0600 Lucas Albers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could someone post an updated redhat spec file for rc4? ln -s Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc4.tar.gz Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60.tar.gz rpmbuild -ta Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60.tar.gz (The spec file in the tarball isn't expe

[SAtalk] Setting contact when building RPM

When building the RPM from the tarball, how do I set the CONTACT_ADDRESS? I suppose ideally the spec file should allow one to pass in a %define on the rpmbuild command line to set that. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to

Re: [SAtalk] SA and tagging/removing

--On Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:56 PM +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why SA itself cannot delete??? It would be easy for programming, or not? Patches welcome. Note that SA isn't just one program, but a suite of tools. --- This sf.net

Re: [SAtalk] New virus posing as Microsoft

--On Saturday, September 20, 2003 11:37 AM -0400 "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: By using spamass-milter you have the option of rejecting the message before reception completes. This way, the spammer knows that you have rejected his message and that you have not received it. Nope, he p

Re: [SAtalk] All these Microsoft patch spams

--On Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:31 PM -0400 Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, you could write a custom rule or two to pick these off. > > A body rule something like this should do: > > body LOCAL_SVEN_WORM /\bThis is the latest version of security update\b/ > score LOCAL_SVEN

Re: [SAtalk] Spamd domain sockets implementation

--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:48 AM + Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > spamd --socketpath=/path/to/socket/file > > spamc -U /path/to/socket/file 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.

RE: [SAtalk] All these Microsoft patch spams

--On Monday, September 22, 2003 10:15 PM -0400 Larry Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is interesting. In 99% of my messages, the subject is capitalized but > the From/To are not. I see the same, but my distribution ratio would be the reverse of that. Maybe we have two variants of the wor

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 released!!

--On Monday, September 22, 2003 10:33 PM -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://SpamAssassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60.tar.gz > http://SpamAssassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60.tar.bz2 Not sure what you might do to fix this, but "rpmbuild -ta" with the bz2

Re: [SAtalk] SPAM, BLOCK: Death of monkeys.com DNSbl (fwd)

--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:07 PM -0500 Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First Osirusoft, now monkeys.com. Which DNSBL is next? When do the > crosshairs move to SpamAssassin? Why are these systems not available through lots of secondaries, with a long expire time, so a DDoS can't

Re: [SAtalk] SPAM, BLOCK: Death of monkeys.com DNSbl (fwd)

--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

Re: [SAtalk] SPAM, BLOCK: Death of monkeys.com DNSbl (fwd)

--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:12 PM -0700 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah -- a GPG-signed, private NNTP network would work great. Just needs someone to code it all up ;) Jesting aside, you could start a new newsgroup for this purpose, with people posting the data to the new

Re: [SAtalk] Sa-learn not learning

--On Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:50 PM +1000 Trevor Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From which I assume I need this DB_File thingy. So I then do the following which I hope is right, and then I get this... Note that Red Hat supplies this in RPM form, as the perl-DB_File package. Many Perl

Re: [SAtalk] Who is spamming me - a bit of statistics

--On Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:07 PM -0500 Frank Pineau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wouldn't wanna run my MTA via inet (or xinet). It would make more sense to use the script to generate an iptables rule (or whatever firewall you use). I'm not sure but can't sendmail be built with the tcpwr

Re: [SAtalk] options for spamassassin

--On Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:49 PM -0700 Jill U'Ren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The institution where I work is currently running SpamAssassin on a Red Hat > 7.2 box. I'm using MIMEDefang (a milter) on my 7.2 systems. There's a "recipe" on the MD website explaining how to discard high-scori

Re: [SAtalk] Spam: The Screwfly Solution

--On Monday, October 06, 2003 11:54 AM -0700 Mike Van Pelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Speaking of nasty little parasites, imagine a 419 spammer. > He gets 100,000 "bites" to his spam. Wow, he must have hit > the jackpot! Except... no. 99,999 of them are fake, > computer-generated "leads", whi

[SAtalk] Spam-Fighter Humor: The Don't-Pay-For-Placement Search Engine

--- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better ser

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Evil rules HUGE update!

--On Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:07 PM -0400 Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yep, putting add-on rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin is a great place.. SA will automatically read every config file in that directory, not just local.cf. If you use spamd, restart it, just as you would if you e

[SAtalk] Upgrade your SA! (was: image only porn)

--On Monday, October 13, 2003 6:04 PM -0400 "Carl R. Friend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Do. 2.60 fixes quite a few things, shuts down now-long-gone > RBLs, improves scoring, and (even though I was originally a > skeptic) performs well enough (sans Bayes). And like anti-virus software, anti-

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin updates

--On Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:50 PM -0400 Charles Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The docs say that 'local.cf' will not be affected by updates - it's the > "safe" place to put your local rules. Those error messages would seem to > suggest that is not quite true. That depends on how your

Re: [SAtalk] CPAN or RPM's?

--On Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:37 AM -0400 Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now as I look more closely at CPAN I now see it's a perl replacement (or at > least I think it is) for the RPM method. Bearing in mind the comments on > whether or not RH will release another non-commerical version,

RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin updates

--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:25 PM -0400 Larry Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regardless, issuing an 'rpm --rebuild' on the > RPMS is building from source and installing the resulting binary RPM is > installing from a source that was made on the target machine. If the original author wa

RE: [SAtalk] Off Topic BUT packages vs source

--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:53 PM -0500 Bill Polhemus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I have never attempted to build SRPMS myself. Is this difficult to > do? A spec file (used to guide building an SRPM into an RPM) is just a text file with an RPM DB entry (eg. name, version, descript

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin updates

--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:40 PM -0400 Terry Milnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're gonna have to excuse my ignorance here but I have to wonder how this > is done, presently for apache I do a pre configure then do the openssl, ssl > mod and perl mod, then pass 15 parameters onto the con

Re: [SAtalk] CPAN or RPM's?

ro definition (says where the build will take place, instead of root's /usr/source/redhat), downloading the SA SRPM, and issuing "rpmbuild --rebuild .src.rpm" to recreate the binary RPM. Then su and install the binary RPM. I have this in my buildmeister's .rpmmacros: %_topd

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin updates

--On Friday, October 17, 2003 8:48 AM -0400 Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm spamassassin-tools-2.60-1.i386.rpm spamassassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm What does perl-Mai do? I assume all three need to be installed? SA is essentially a suite of Perl modules, with dr

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] What is next step?

--On Monday, October 20, 2003 5:19 PM -0400 Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Get rid of SMTP. Create an entirely new protocol on an entirely new port, and have it *trusted* every step of the way. Even if we had to licence its use [gawd, I'd hate that!] with abuse of this new protocol

Re: [SAtalk] stats script, by (fairly) popular demand

--On Thursday, October 30, 2003 2:26 PM -0600 'mikea' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my $s = grep /is spam/, @wholefile; # spam This doesn't work with my copy of SA, which is using spamc/spamd. Instead of "is spam", I get "identified spam". --

[SAtalk] Bugzilla #2561 (uninitialized value in BayesStore.pm)

I was going to append a comment to the bugzilla but it reported an internal error, so I'll post the comment here before I lose it: I ran into the same thing, and ended up putting a dbg statement above the line in question to see what was going on. Looks like oldmagic was getting a corrupt value f

[SAtalk] tok_put atime uninitialized

I've seen several reports of this on the list but no resolution yet. Any clues, anyone? Here's a typical log line: spamd[6718]: Argument "" isn't numeric in numeric lt (<) at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore.pm line 1245, line 24. Looking at BayesStore, it appears tha

Re: [SAtalk] using spamd/spamc to reject SMTP connection

--On Friday, October 31, 2003 3:27 PM -0600 Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You could track the IP addresses of systems sending you spam from your > mail logs, drop those into a sendmail access list, then reject (5xx) or > tempfail (4xx) those systems for an hour or so, and reject more >

[SAtalk] SA in the news: Reason

The November issue of Reason (http://www.reason.com/) has an article by Wendy Grossman (http://www.pelicancrossing.net/) on spam that mentions SA quite favorably. The article should appear on the Reason website once the December issue is released. -

Re: [SAtalk] Standard Spamd Deamon

--On Saturday, November 01, 2003 11:40 AM -0600 Masoud Pajoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After a lot fulling with rpm's, at last I installed the latest Perl and then SA using CPAN. It would be useful to know what went wrong with the RPM's so either they can be fixed or the instructions can be im

Re: [SAtalk] RedHat 9 Makefile.PL problems

--On Saturday, April 05, 2003 12:25 AM +0300 Mika Hirvonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe someone should tell RedHat that they should update their rpms. The > tests on SpamAssassin 2.4x are a bit old, and there's no bayes support > either. RH freezes code well in advance of a release, and SA

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] MSN has a good penis pill story :)

I particularly like this quote, from the operator of http://www.quackwatch.org/: “I think that the average person thinks that the government protects us and that if (a product’s claims) weren’t valid, somehow or other it wouldn’t be allowed,” he said. “Obviously, that needs to change.” -

Re: [SAtalk] Spamtrap account?

--On Friday, June 06, 2003 7:34 PM +0100 Jim Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I set up a spamtrap account to seed any postings to the NGs I use FWIW, I post to newsgroups with ".blacklist" appended to my name in the From line and my real address in the Reply-To. The stuff that arrives at that

Re: [SAtalk] Fwd: Offshore person to needed to host blind SMTPserver

--On Friday, June 06, 2003 11:40 PM -0400 Weyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'll pay a hundred dollars a month for hosting if I get good results and speed (I need to send millions of emails a day) from the machine. Wow, what a deal. --- This

Re: [SAtalk] I hate Mandatory Mail Filtering!!!! - speakeasy.netbites the dust. (was "I hate SpamAsssassin")

--On Saturday, June 07, 2003 1:10 PM -0700 "L. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Remember when I was looking for why my email filters had broken...well turns out fetchmail occasionally gets confused by the extra 10-15 lines (depends on message) that their "email guardian" inserts into the header:

[SAtalk] socketpair in Perl 5.8 (was: Sugarplum spam poison?)

--On Sunday, June 08, 2003 11:21 AM +0300 Hannu Liljemark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://world.std.com/~pacman/proxypot.html He mentions that Perl 5.8 has a memory leak in socketpair. Does SA use that? That could affect long runs of spamd.

RE: [SAtalk] I hate Mandatory Mail Filtering!!!! - speakeasy.net bitesthe dust. (was "I hate SpamAsssassin")

--On Monday, June 09, 2003 2:33 PM -0700 "L. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But this also misses the point -- mandatory filtering is *bad*. Ok, granted. I only use my ISP-supplied email account for ISP notifications. All else goes to a mail server under my control. (And I use fetchmai

RE: [SAtalk] Really OT: Microsoft buys out RAV

--On Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:47 PM -0700 Ben Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use MS as the operating system only. All Other services are 3rd party > software That goes a long ways. Seems every time you install an update to an MS application, it touches something deep in the kernel and

RE: [SAtalk] Really OT: Microsoft buys out RAV

--On Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:03 PM -0500 Jason Brunette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guess RAV's slogan will change to "Worry less! MICROSOFT IS WATCHING". Too late, MSN and the butterfly claim that. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by:

Re: [SAtalk] Kinda OT maybe. SA install/update...

--On Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:59 PM -0400 Steve Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But now I'm hearing a LOT about how I should be installing via CPAN or via > the SRC RPMs, and I wonder. If you're using an RPM-based system, rebuilding from SRPM and installing from the resulting binary RPM wil

Re: [SAtalk] IMAP: Mark as read?

--On Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:23 AM -0400 Brian Klug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For anyone else interested, heres my .procmailrc line: As UW-IMAP uses the X-Status F flag for "important", I have this: # add IMAP "important" flag :0f * ^Sender: spamassassin * From:.*jmason | formail -i "X-Statu

Re: [SAtalk] Advice

--On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:30 PM -0700 Marek Dohojda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it seems a lot of resumes are marked spam! It would be useful to build a corpus of these for GA training. Are they confidential? Are they triggering particular rules? -

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin at Redhat 7.2?

--On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 6:31 AM +0200 Klaus Pforte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have an older Redhat 7.2 mail/web server and want to install SpamAssassin. > > On this system I cannot upgrade to perl 5.6.1... What prevents the Perl upgrade? I updated to perl-5.6.1-34.99.6 to get the newer M

[SAtalk] Exploitable opt-ins

I followed the link in this message and found an opt-in form, collected data, and password file, all in the clear. How nice (NOT). OTOH, it all looks vaguely suspicious, as most of the addresses in the collection file are obvious fakes. But maybe that's normal for this kind of thing. BTW, this

RE: [SAtalk] FBI fraud reporting site

--On Friday, August 08, 2003 5:09 PM -0400 Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is interesting. It is fraud, not spam. Insofar as frauds are unwanted email, I'd classify them as a subcategory of spam. Hence my post. --- This SF.Net

[SAtalk] FBI fraud reporting site

Just saw this on the DShield list: --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Do

Re: [SAtalk] Need some help getting started.

On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 19:50, Steven W. Orr wrote: > Red Hat linux 7.3 with sendmail-8.12.2-7 > Razor-2.09 > spamassassin-2.20-1 Similar setup, RH7.2, no Razor, SA installed from SRPM. > Then I created my /etc/procmailrc with content: > :0fw > | spamc > > I modified my init.d/spamassassin

[SAtalk] spamc/spamd -u parameter and per-user configuration

I'm running spamc/spamd on Red Hat 7.2 from the 2.20 RPM. (Just finished building 2.31 and will update shortly.) The spamd command line, taken from the initscript, looks like this: spamd -d -c -a In /etc/procmailrc I have: :0fw | /usr/bin/spamc -u spamd Before adding the -u to spamc, no proce

Re: [SAtalk] Re: spamassassin 2.31 rpm

On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 06:51, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > Thanks. :) As an FYI, I've had some RPMs available since 2.31's release > (mentioned on the SA-talk list as well): > with SRPM available at: > http://www.kluge.net/ftp/pub/felicity/SRPMS/spamassassin-2.31-1.src.rpm Can you add a Requires:

Re: [SAtalk] Re: spamassassin 2.31 rpm

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 07:18, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 03:20:31AM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote: > > Can you add a Requires: for package perl-Time-HiRes? (This is available > > in RH7.3 and Rawhide, but for earlier RH it's in Power Tools.). I just > &g

Re: [SAtalk] RE: Spam Assassin and Free Speech Issues

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 09:31, Rich Wellner wrote: > Censorship is not the exclusive domain of the government. A school, for > example, could easily use SA as a censorship tool. If it's a private school, you're paying for them to filter for you. Not censorship. If it's a government school, then i

Re: [SAtalk] Re: how do you tell what's a reply to your ownoutgoing mail?

On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 04:17, Justin Mason wrote: > - more legit-list systems are following Yahoo! Groups lead, and > including links to handle unsubbing -- causing false positives. > After all, these links are *very* useful for legit-list systems. It seems to be catching NeatNetTricks

[SAtalk] Other discussions of SA

After having SA mark an issue of a Lyris-hosted newsletter I subscribe to as spam, I started a discussion of SA here: http://www.escribe.com/computing/neatnettricks/bb/index.html?bID=29470 Feel free to jump in and correct my errors. ;-) ---

Re: [SAtalk] Gotcha! IP, date and time - you gave me all I need :o)

On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 16:10, Malte S. Stretz wrote: > Very nice! > > On my website [1] I have a public e-mail address which is created every time > you visit a page and contains date, time and IP of the visit. Now, finally, > I got some spam on some of those dummy addresses. Cool! Can you shar

Re: [SAtalk] Osirusoft - trustworthy?

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 04:51, Miles Fidelman wrote: > It sort of a shame that Osirusoft doesn't have a way to indicate which > lists are included in a query-response (e.g. a bit per incorporated list > in its response). Can one query the TXT entry for a listed site to get more detail?

[SAtalk] SourceForge reminder scores 8.0 with SA 2.41

I got serveral SF reminders that all scored 8.0. One is attached. --- Begin Message --- SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results -- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail

[SAtalk] Re: Whitelist Help

BTW, what's the ideal whitelist directive for the SATalk list? Or would a procmail rule be better? --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ S

Re: [SAtalk] SA score in subject?

--On Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM +0100 Nancy McGough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use this > rewrite_subject 1 > subject_tag {* _HITS_ *} > in my user_prefs file. The _HITS_ token is documented in the SA > man page. I do this as well. I then set my spam folder to sort by subject (ie. th

Re: [SAdev] Re: [SAtalk] [SA-Announce] SpamAssassin 2.43 released

--On Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:26 PM -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You mean besides the spec file in the tar ball or the (S)RPMs available > from http://www.kluge.net/ftp/pub/spamassassin/ ??? And which you can rebuild without unpacking the tarball by using the "-ta" optio

Re: [SAtalk] winpopup spams - article

--On Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:51 AM -0700 Jonathan Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I recall someone talking about getting hit with Windows Messenger > spams recently. Here's an article about them: > http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,55795,00.html >From the article: "While W

Re: [SAtalk] 2.43 src RPM build fails

--On Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:06 PM -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > at the moment, I don't know what to say. for some people, the > problem seems to be that when MakeMaker generates the Makefile, > it puts the library files in /usr/lib/site_perl/... instead of > /usr/lib/pe

[SAtalk] Funny false positive

>From the qpopper mailing list. SA 2.41 thinks it's porn. I can see the all-caps "unlimited", but I don't see the porn phrases. SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results -- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can reco

Re: [SAtalk] Sitewide use of spamassassin

--On Saturday, October 19, 2002 3:01 PM -0500 "Bryant, Eric D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. Can SA work well as an opt-in/opt-out solution? I first encountered SA on The Well (http://www.well.com) and it was offered as an opt-out service. A web page is provided to opt out and to fine-tune se

Re: [SAtalk] Sitewide use of spamassassin

--On Saturday, October 19, 2002 4:57 PM -0400 Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Watch it so you don't tread on clued users' procmailing. Maybe include > a warning if the user's .procmailrc already exists, or spit the rules > out to a different file... Creative use of environment varia

Re: [SAtalk] MakeMaker problem on RH7.2

--On Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:09 AM -0800 Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All the references in the Makefiles that should point to > /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1 point instead at /usr/lib/5.6.1. I'm trying to trace > through MakeMaker to figure out why this is hap

[SAtalk] MakeMaker problem on RH7.2

I decided to upgrade from 2.41 to 2.43 and am trying to rebuild the tarball into an RPM on Red Hat 7.2. The process fails when MakeMaker generates the Makefiles. (The actual error message comes much later at packaging time, but I've traced it back to bad MakeMaker output.) All the references in th

RE: [SAtalk] RedHat 8.0 bundled Spam Assassin

--On Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:39 AM -0800 Steve Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, you'll want to upgrade SA to 2.43. Do this by running (as root): > > perl -MCPAN -e 'install Mail::SpamAssassin' As this is Red Hat, you probably want to keep things under RPM database control. Grab

Re: [SAtalk] You have a secret admirer

--On Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:55 PM -0500 Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd say most lists about free software are open like that. It's really > a whole community thing. Many people like to browse the web archives > and post only occasionally. Why shouldn't that be allowed? I'm

Re: [SAtalk] MakeMaker problem on RH7.2

--On Friday, November 15, 2002 12:03 PM +0100 Jan Schreckenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this what I put into my spec-file to make it work: > > INSTALLARCHLIB=%{perl_archlib} INSTALLSITEARCH=%{perl_sitearch} \ > PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} INST_PREFIX=%{_prefix} \ > %{__perl} Mak

Re: [SAtalk] Is this a threat? [SA hate mail sent to me]

--On Friday, November 15, 2002 11:29 AM -0800 Kelsey Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Legitimate business does use the net you know and filtering out words > like: > > credit card, for your, thank you, what you, with your, you for, your > business, your credit, your order, etc. SPAM: and m

Re: [SAtalk] spamassassin-2.41-1.i386.rpm Install

--On Monday, November 18, 2002 12:10 PM +0800 "Wilmar O. Guday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin.pm in @INC Do you see that module in any of those directories? It may be that you need to install a separate RPM for the Perl module in addition to the one that has spamc/sp

Re: [SAtalk] spamassassin-2.41-1.i386.rpm Install

--On Monday, November 18, 2002 1:29 PM -0500 Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that these RPMs do NOT work for versions of Linux other than Redhat > 7.3 with perl 5.6.1. If you want to use SA on any other RPM based > distribution, download the tarball and use that. In fact, I'd just a

Re: [SAtalk] MakeMaker problem on RH7.2

--On Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:09 AM -0800 Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All the references in the Makefiles that should point to > /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1 point instead at /usr/lib/5.6.1. I'm trying to trace > through MakeMaker to figure out why this is

Re: [SAtalk] MakeMaker problem on RH7.2

--On Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:43 PM -0800 Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If SA is to remain buildable under 7.2, then I suggest using Jan's command > line in the spec file to work around the broken path logic in the old > MakeMaker module. As it happens, I

Re: [SAtalk] False Negative Corpus

--On Friday, November 22, 2002 4:36 PM -0500 Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it is about as useful as reporting virii missed by several > months old antivirus software... SA has advanced significantly since > 2.31, and spam has evolved since then too. I ran his corpus through my

[SAtalk] SA with Mailman

Has anyone used SA with Mailman? How do you set that up? I just started up a Mailman system and would like to use SA to process submissions and reject anything that scores as spam. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Get the new Palm Tungsten

Re: [SAtalk] a web-of-trust for antispam

--On Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:23 PM -0800 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Recently, there's been some work on getting a rudimentary web of trust up and running for antispam -- fundamentally, for whitelisting mail servers. More details at: http://www.web-o-trust.org/ Sounds interesti

[SAtalk] "Curn"?!

This seems to be the new favorite porn euphemism of spammers. (Often with a dot or other punctuation in the middle.) What's needed to get SA to start recognizing it as a synonym for "cum"? --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-

RE: [SAtalk] New Obfuscation Technique?

--On Monday, November 10, 2003 8:20 PM -0500 Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It did however use a trick to avoid the standard FROM_AND_TO_SAME so your rule can help out by adding some score.. However, 104.1 is a bit excessive, since there's no white list to over-ride. (Bret is smart and d

Re: [SAtalk] random localpart in "TO" address

--On Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:18 AM +0200 Thomas Kinghorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does anyone know of a way to block mail sent to an invalid, random localpart. E,G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are getting a lot of mails with "TO" addresses like the ones above. I know how to sto

Re: [SAtalk] FROM_AND_TO_SAME Rule does not seem to work

--On Sunday, November 09, 2003 12:01 AM + Derek Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: These trigger the AWL test and come in with a low score, and are not detected by the FROM_AND_TO_SAME test which ought to find them. That test looks like it compares the entire From and To line, not just the

[SAtalk] Salutation in subject

Are there any rules to catch the salutation-in-subject pattern? This looks like something requiring an eval rule. It would check if the subject starts with "name,", where "name" is the first word in the To header. For instance, I get a lot of false negatives with "Kenneth," at the beginning of the

  1   2   >