This is a list that MailPolice hosts and I have been running it for a few
hours and it has already flagged some phish and fraud e-mails. Here is some
info about the list: http://rhs.mailpolice.com/#rhsfraud
This is my configuration for SA 2.64 with the SpamCopURI plug-in:
uri MP_URI_RBL
ev
Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> > In my logic, there is no valid reason that a remote sender would connect
> > directly to our SMTP server from their dynamic/DSL/cable IP to send our
> > customer's an email ... I think ? Valid 'remote to local' emails being
> > sent from these DSL/cable/dialup IP would n
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:30:36PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> Shouldn't the SA build & test process be a little more verbose about
> this, though, and at least spit out some warnings about missing Perl
> modules? While the dnsbnl tests may not be necessary for SA to work,
> it's certainly a lot m
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 06:20:47PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:17:52PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> > Running SA on a mailbox or message in debug mode does not appear to show
> > any dnsbl tests happening.
>
> You have Net::DNS installed and the debug output shows i
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:17:52PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> And, in any event, the checks should be working when SA itself is run,
> right? I checked and RBL checks etc. aren't disabled in my user_prefs or
As usual, run with -D it tells you what's going on.
> Running SA on a mailbox or messag
I'm running spamassassin 3.0rc4 on OpenBSD sparc64.
Dnsbl tests don't appear to be running, and when running "make test", I
get:
t/dnsbl.skipped
all skipped: no reason given
I had originally checked the option to skip network checks during the
test, but ran "make cle
> In my logic, there is no valid reason that a remote sender would connect
> directly to our SMTP server from their dynamic/DSL/cable IP to send our
> customer's an email ... I think ? Valid 'remote to local' emails being
> sent from these DSL/cable/dialup IP would normally be relayed via their
>
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 10:55, Dougie Nisbet wrote:
> Yesterday I changed my list settings to Digest mode. I'm still getting
> individual emails. Does anyone know how long it takes for the change to
> take effect?
>
> Dougie
Ok, perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. Is it
http://wiki.apa
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 01:59:31PM -0400, James wrote:
> I checked the doc's archive however, I can not find a solution to my
> problem. What I am trying to do is have different users in Mysql bayes
> db. I am using Spamd with the following start options:
> -d -c -m6 -H -i0.0.0.0 -A192.168.0 -D -x
Correct, I do get users not found with the -x. I guess the big thing is,
how do others do multi user/domain with their setup? Do you create the
user in every case? My plan was later down the road to deploy a few more
linux servers with sa only on them for higher mail volumes.
Thanks,
James
--
Quoting James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I checked the doc's archive however, I can not find a solution to my
problem. What I am trying to do is have different users in Mysql bayes
db. I am using Spamd with the following start options:
-d -c -m6 -H -i0.0.0.0 -A192.168.0 -D -x -s /var/log/spamd.log
When
I checked the doc's archive however, I can not find a solution to my
problem. What I am trying to do is have different users in Mysql bayes
db. I am using Spamd with the following start options:
-d -c -m6 -H -i0.0.0.0 -A192.168.0 -D -x -s /var/log/spamd.log
When I do a spamassassin --lint -D it l
-Original Message-
From: Robert Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:12 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Memory usage question
-Original Message-
From: Brook Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:
-Original Message-
From: Brook Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:04 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Memory usage question
On Friday 17 September 2004 07:05, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Yeah, bring that 50 down a little :) Maybe 10. More m
On Friday 17 September 2004 07:05, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Yeah, bring that 50 down a little :) Maybe 10. More memory NEVER hurt
> anyone!
>
> Currently with BigEvil I'm running 51 megs for spamd!!! But the record on a
> production server is something like 145. I think it was a crazy german ;)
>
>
I found this type of rule to be very helpful in catching 'zombie spam
relay' emails from specific 'problem' networks.
The problem I faced with an all inclusive ban on these networks was that
our customer's connect to our SMTP servers from all around the world.
Banning Dynamic, DSL, Cable, or Dialu
On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 11:04, jeff jones wrote:
> Hello all, I was wondering is someone can help me out? 3.0 RC1 was real
> stable for me. Should I downgrade or do I need to update additional
> software. This machine is RH FC2 with all security updates, and patches.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>
> Sep 1
I had similar problems, not related to SA though, and found that the mm
application was trying to allocate randomly high memory locations. Turned out
to be a bad memory chip. Using the Fedora core 2 boot disk I did a
memtest86... Might be worth the extra hour...
_
Hello all, I was wondering is someone can help me out? 3.0 RC1 was real
stable for me. Should I downgrade or do I need to update additional
software. This machine is RH FC2 with all security updates, and patches.
Thanks,
Jeff
Sep 16 15:23:21 mail1 kernel: [ cut here ]
Sep
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:42:20AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Since your box has 256mb of physical ram, I'd limit it to maximum of
> 256mb/15mb = 17 spamd's at the highest. I'd really suggest using something
> much lower like 10 unless you add some ram.
Even this seems to be dangerous (sometim
At 09:23 AM 9/17/2004, Robert Bartlett wrote:
Are you using the -m parameter of spamd to limit the number of children
it
will spawn? I'd suggest something like -m 6 to start with.
Yeah it is setup for 50:
-d -c -a -m50 -u user -v -H
50 is a LOT of spamd's... even at the low-end of 15mb each that's
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 12:02:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Will anyone please help me?
>
> I've recently had a working sitewide install of spamassassin stop working
> and it's very upsetting! :(
Wotcher Hugh :)
Do you have any monitoring task scanning port 783 ? There's a bug
in spam
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:02 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: After starting spamd, spamc fails to connect to it and spamd
>stops running!?
>
>
>Will anyone please help me?
>
> I've recently ha
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:24 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Memory usage question
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 17,
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Memory usage question
At 06:56 PM 9/16/2004 -0700, Robert Bartlett wrote:
>Thanks for the reply! Here is the deal, we
Hi Loren,
> I suspect that is more of a broken spammer than a new trick.
Maybe both? :-)
> I can't see what good that line is going to do for the spammer.
Well, whoever replys to the spammer, telling him no matter what
mails his reply (usually including the quoted original mail) to everyone in
th
At 06:56 PM 9/16/2004 -0700, Robert Bartlett wrote:
Thanks for the reply! Here is the deal, we are currently deciding what
we want to do next. Currently we have a Celeron 2.4 gig system with 256
megs of ram and a 40 gig hdd. In the past week or so our system has come
to a halt, under 3 megs availab
I suspect that is more of a broken spammer than a new trick. But it might
be interesting to test the theory on a corpus. I can't see what good that
line is going to do for the spammer.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Spiegl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, Septemb
> Thanks for the reply! Here is the deal, we are currently deciding what
> we want to do next. Currently we have a Celeron 2.4 gig system with 256
> megs of ram and a 40 gig hdd. In the past week or so our system has come
> to a halt, under 3 megs available, due to a bunch of emails coming in at
>
Declan,
Running both with -p 15505 returns the same error.
Any more ideas?
Many thanks...
hugh
- Original Message -
From: "Declan Moriarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: After starting spamd, spamc fails to connect to
Hi
I would like to know if it is possible to have a per domain
configuration using spamassassin 2.64 + amavisd p10 on a single server.
I mean having one pair of spamassassin 2.64 + amavisd p10 processes
handling with domain1 and domain2 for example , another pair handling
with for domain3 etc e
Will anyone please help me?
I've recently had a working sitewide install of spamassassin stop working
and it's very upsetting! :(
Many thanks.
hugh
-- My problem:
As far as I can tell spamd starts correctly, spamc then tries and fails to
connect to it and spam
Hi, I just got a nigerian spam with a huge Reply-To: line!
Never seen that trick before, but I suppose it works with quite a few of
the recipients. Should we create a new rule for that? I can't think of a
legitimate reason to have more than one address in the Reply-To line, right?
Here goes a sa
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rather than divide the score sets by with/without Bayes, have multiple
> score sets and use the Bayes probability to choose which score set to
> apply. (I.e., there is no direct score for Bayes itself.) A Bayes
> probability of, say, 0.45 - 0.55 would
On 16 Sep 2004 13:39:30 -0700, Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we could use a better way to merge Bayesian results into the
> SpamAssassin score, though.
Hm.
An idea that just occurred to me, that would have been prohibitively
expensive with the GA but maybe isn't with the
Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SpamCop got fooled by this URI obfuscation, so I wrote them about
> it. Would someone please feed it through SA to see if it handles
> it correctly:
It doesn't matter because the message had a score of 19. In 2.64, it
had a score of 11.
With network test
Jeff Chan wrote to SpamAssassin Users:
Update on the previous, interestingly the HTML renderer in The Bat!
1.62q did not make the link clickable, but the plaintext message
renderer did.
That's because the HTML did not actually contain a link (anchor); just
the plaintext URI. Many plaintext renderer
Update on the previous, interestingly the HTML renderer in The
Bat! 1.62q did not make the link clickable, but the plaintext
message renderer did.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.surbl.org/
SpamCop got fooled by this URI obfuscation, so I wrote them about
it. Would someone please feed it through SA to see if it handles
it correctly:
__ CUT HERE __
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 66.170.1.10 ([221.139.191.210])
by smtp1.supranet.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with S
Peuhkurinen, Kevin said:
> Why not just report the thief to your local law enforcement agency? That
> would seem a much more appropriate way to go. After all, the thief could
> just get SpamAssassin and never see any of that spam you signed him/her up
> for.
>
They did.
It's just so easy to get
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Memory usage question
At 09:26 PM 9/16/2004, Robert Bartlett wrote:
>I remember someone saying something about memor
At 09:26 PM 9/16/2004, Robert Bartlett wrote:
I remember someone saying something about memory usage per email that
spamd uses to scan? But cannot find the email, what is the estimated
amount of memory used per SA scan? I also have clamav set up
Varies a lot depending on your configuration (bayes
I remember someone saying something about memory usage per
email that spamd uses to scan? But cannot find the
email, what is the estimated amount of memory used per SA scan? I also have clamav set up.
Thank you
Robert Bartlett
Director of Software Engineering
Digital Phoenix Hosting & D
43 matches
Mail list logo
