On Friday, January 16, 2004 @ 10:13:21 AM [-0700], Carl Chipman wrote:
> LART
Linux Advanced Radio Terminal
> UBE/UCE
Upper Body Excerciser/Unforeseen Circumstances Excepted
acronymfinder.com :)
--
Matt
---
The SF.
On Thursday, January 22, 2004 @ 5:55:05 AM [-0700], Matthias Fuhrmann wrote:
> i've fixed couple things of spamstats0.4b5.pl a while ago.
> see attached version. just have a try.
Oh my gosh...this thread motivated me to run a quick check today. I
run a smaller server with only 10 or so domains bu
Sorry for this, I stopped receiving spamassassin-talk emails late
Friday night...
--
Regards,
Matt
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
Se
On Monday, January 26, 2004 @ 8:03:45 AM [-0700], PieterB wrote:
> Is there some way to prevent spamassassin from using SA-talk messages
> for Bayes auto_learning. My bayes filter seems to be less effective
> since a lot of spamphrases/tokens are discussed on this list.
Do you have access to proc
Hello,
I just got the below spam and didn't see a hit for the empty "From"
line. Shouldn't the NO_REAL_NAME test have caught this?
Thanks.
--
Matt
X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC822 header formatting in >From matt Thu May 16 13:19:16
2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EM
Hello spamassassin-talk,
Is there a searchable spamassassin mail list archive somewhere? I'd
search the archive for the answer but...
--
Regards,
Matt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Hundreds of nodes, one mons
Hello Tony,
Sunday, May 19, 2002, 5:42:36 PM, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> Well... using the domain you can click your way to the official archive (for
> the lazy: http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/11679/0 > :-),
> but AFAIK you have to read all the subjects, page after page, to find w
Hello,
Can the...
header
description
score
...format be used with spamassassin run individually from procmail or is
it a function usable only with spamd/spamc?
--
Regards,
Matt
___
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Devel
Hello Bart,
Saturday, June 1, 2002, 9:21:37 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> header FAKE_IP_RCVD Received =~
>/\[0|(?:\d{1,3}\.){0,3}(?:2(?:5[6-9]|[6-9]\d)|[3-9]\d\d)[.\d]*\]/
> describe FAKE_IP_RCVD Received via an impossible IP address
> test FAKE_IP_RCVD ok[0.1.2.3]
> test FAKE_IP_RCVD
Hi,
I'm running version 2.55, no custom rules, with a spam threshold of 3.
It's been working great, catching every single spam and only one or two
fp's a week. Within the last week however, I've started to get about 2-4
spams a day sneaking under my 3 threshold. Is anyone else experiencing
this? I
Hi,
I apologize in advance if this should be posted to an alternate list...
I'm getting the below errors with v 2.60-cvs...
Aug 16 16:00:32 ns1 spamd[14875]: Failed to run BAYES_80 SpamAssassin test, skipping:
^I(No write permission
to sdbm file at lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore.pm line 933,
On Saturday, August 16, 2003 @ 5:34:59 PM [-0700], Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 05:17:57PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
>> Aug 16 16:00:32 ns1 spamd[14875]: Failed to run BAYES_50
>> SpamAssassin test, skipping: ^I(No write permission
>> to sdbm file at
On Friday, August 22, 2003 @ 1:56:26 PM [-0700], Tim Buck wrote:
> So I've reverted back to SA 2.55. Anyone else see this behavior?
Tim...yes. I had an almost identical problem. Two or three users
suddenly started getting a lot more spam and the headers indeed showed
no SA checks. I too reverted
I'm still having some trouble with 2.6...
I've been using SA since...well a long time...and all versions up until
2.6 have been problem free. I upgraded to 2.60-rc1, and now rc2, and I
get the following errors during spam checks...
Aug 25 17:00:07 ns1 spamd[1005]: Failed to run BAYES_80 SpamAssas
On Monday, August 25, 2003 @ 8:04:19 PM [-0700], Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 06:38:00PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
>> Aug 25 17:00:07 ns1 spamd[1005]: Failed to run BAYES_80
>> SpamAssassin test, skipping: ^I(No write permission to
>> sdbm file at
&g
On Monday, August 25, 2003 @ 9:59:31 PM [-0700], Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:50:48PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
>> Pardon my ignorance but how do I indicate that I would prefer DB_File?
> Just install it. But, fyi, you'd have to kill your current db
On Monday, August 25, 2003 @ 3:24:20 AM [-0700], Simon Byrnand wrote:
>> On Friday, August 22, 2003 @ 1:56:26 PM [-0700], Tim Buck wrote:
>>
>>> So I've reverted back to SA 2.55. Anyone else see this behavior?
>>
>> Tim...yes. I had an almost identical problem. Two or three users
>> suddenly start
On Thursday, September 11, 2003 @ 6:59:16 PM [-0700], Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> http://SpamAssassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc4.tar.gz
Hi...just upgraded from rc3 to rc4 and am now seeing this in the logs...
razor2 check skipped: Bad file descriptor Insecure dependency in
connect wh
Hi,
Not sure if this was discussed but does the latest release candidate (4)
log spamd calls by default? for some reason, it just stopped logging as
of Friday and I have no idea why...
--
Regards,
Matt
---
This sf.n
On Friday, September 12, 2003 @ 11:33:14 AM [-0700], Vivek Khera wrote:
>>>>>> "MT" == Matt Thoene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MT>> Hi...just upgraded from rc3 to rc4 and am now seeing this in the logs...
MT>> razor2 check skipped: Bad file descrip
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 11:09:25 AM [-0700], Covington, Chris wrote:
> All interested parties should read:
> http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
> I just hope Verisign doesn't read this as "OK, we'll change an aspect or
> two of how the new system works."
> Chris
Wel
On Monday, September 22, 2003 @ 3:17:03 PM [-0700], landy wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 07:56, Markus Gaugusch wrote:
>> On Sep 22, Tom Meunier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Spamstats does that.
>> Thanks! That's EXACTLY what I wanted :)
> for this to work do you need spamd?
Yes. Spamstat
On Monday, October 6, 2003 @ 4:21:59 PM [-0700], Bill Polhemus wrote:
> Hey, if I buy some, will they leave me alone?
Oh dear god no. You'll be on the top of EVERY spammers list if you
actually validate it! :)
--
Matt
---
Anyone have a nice rule that will catch the attached? It got negative
scores with fake In-Reply-To, Approved-By, and X-Authentication-Warning
lines. Also, note the faked PGP signature with random words following
it. Sure is a lot of trouble to go through just to get a piece of spam
to my inbox.
--
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 @ 8:40:18 AM [-0700], Charles Mount wrote:
> The question is -- how long can this rule get before I need to start a new
> rule? Is there a limit to the length of the statement or a performance
> penalty for number of checks? Is there a way to improve this or make it
>
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 @ 6:31:39 AM [-0700], Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Well, sendmail can do this as well, and with the same caveat. But I think
> Matt simply confused that body rule with a one that rejects mail by
> sender/sending server which would be an optinmal use for the MTA access
> confi
Hi,
I have tried searching the archives on this but I apparently can't get
the correct search string...hopefully one of you can assist with what is
probably an easy one.
I have been running SA for a few local users for quite a while. It's
worked so well that I decided to take it global so to spea
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 @ 3:55:28 PM [-0700], Patrick Morris wrote:
> I think custom rules may be a problem. I don't believe (though I could
> be wrong) SA allows rules to be defined in user prefs.
Actually, the most important thing for me is to be able to have users
set their own required h
From the responses to my original post, it doesn't appear that this is
possible...however, I'll give it one more try...
I recently implemented SA site-wide after having it run for just a few
local users. The local users (including me) would prefer to use various
levels of required hits. For exampl
On Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 1:31:29 PM [-0700], Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Why "then"? SA will use the value from user_prefs if there is one. Note,
> that score and required_hits are two different beasts, but both can be set
> in user_prefs, no problem. Try spamassassin -D to see what's happening.
Ka
On Monday, July 14, 2003 @ 10:57:29 AM [-0700], Alaw Guo wrote:
> I've installed spamassassin and it was working great up
> until I signed up on dice.com. Dice.com is basically
> a job board where I posted my resume. Since then a lot
> of spam has been getting through spamassassin.
Huh? One has
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 10:15:48 AM, Craig R . Hughes wrote:
> Hmm, does this count as spam?
Nah...
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0
tests=none
version=2.31
--
Matt
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Thursday, July 25, 2002, 8:37:02 AM, Bryan T. Schmidt wrote:
> I use a tool called dbmanage
> http://arska.org/src/dbmanage/
> Its just a bit of Perl. To use, change to your .spamassassin directory,
> and:
> To list a particular user:
> dbmanage auto-whitelist view | grep badguy
> To r
On Friday, December 26, 2003 @ 2:52:10 PM [-0700], Bryan Hoover wrote:
> Gary Funck wrote:
>>
>> It is best to post the entire message as an attachment. In this case,
>> I'd bet that the apparent Ebay link goes somewheree elese (do "view source"
>> on the message).
> Original message attached --
On Tuesday, December 30, 2003 @ 8:01:31 AM [-0700], Mathieu Nantel wrote:
> Is there something I'm missing here? I was under the impression that SA parses
> all .cf files from the share/spamassassin folder.
That should be working. Are you using spamd? If so, did you restart
the daemon?
--
Matt
Sorry if this has been asked but I'm not finding anything in the
archives. I know that any *.cf placed in /etc/mail/spamassassin gets
read but what about rules placed in individual users home directories?
Do they need to be in their user_prefs files or do *.cf files get read
in the users .spamassas
36 matches
Mail list logo
