Nate Schindler wrote:
I do this for my personal server. It's easy to do this with sendmail.
It's not so easy with Exchange/Outlook which is what work uses,
unfortunately.
If you're the Exchange admin, you can do it. Just add another SMTP
address for the account.
Well, I've migrated from 2.64 to 3.0, following all the hints in the
UPDATE file, and the ones given here, in the list. But still I'm
concerned about some messages I get when I run spamassassin --lint,
and because one of my servers, a Pentium III at 900 MHz with 512 MB of
RAM, cannot handle 20 mail
This is exactly the kind of starting point I needed to get me to get in
gear and write something similar for my system. For me however, I am
using the std UWash based IMAP and a few other differences but the
important difference/addition is that I want to automatically train my
users emails acc
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 05:04:35PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> >we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation
>
> Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better documentation?
I would be happy to summarize whatever I learn a
> Perhaps you might consider a disposable-email-address
> factory. Generate a disposable email address that forwards
> to your real email address. Then sign the disposable email
> address up for the list.
>
> If you start getting spam at that email address, discontinue
> the email address.
Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
Right. I want to get my key signed by someone I don't know from a hole
in the wall and, in return, sign his. Fine. Let's totally destroy the
value of signatures. I don't think so.
This is a big problem with GPG, really. If you're an isolated user
there's no way to g
> -Original Message-
> From: Kris Deugau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:24 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: spoofed Received header
>
> Er, I think you're getting your terminology mixed up. Those
> are usually
> considered to be the
Lucas Albers wrote:
Some options kick you in the face.
Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting.
But it gives you an error message explaining exactly what you have to
do, so that's pretty much self-documenting.
Kelson wrote:
How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software?
Bitchin' Open Source Software: BOSS
:-)
Kris Deugau wrote:
> Nate Schindler wrote:
>> I try to treat my e-mail address as if it were my personal phone
>> number. I don't sign up with many mailing lists for this reason...
>> but I love SpamAssassin, so I've made an exception. ;) Well, that,
>> and I wanted to track issues with v3.
...
>
Chris Santerre wrote:
Well...
ver avg scan time
2.4x2.7 seconds
3.0 30.4 seconds
OH MY! Network test :)
Any longer and I might just be doing greylisting by accident. ;)
My time is up a little since upgrading, but not that much. I also
upgraded the hardware on the machine though too, du
Kelson wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps we need a new one.. NBSOSS.. No BS Open Source Software... :)
How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software?
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I came up with a few funnier ones:
TOSS - True Open Source Software.
FLOSS - Freely Licenced Open Source Software
U-D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler wrote:
| I liked OSS better, but then several companies decided offering
| high-dollar licenses to their code made them "open source software" and
| diluted any meaning that expression had.
Actually, I believe the "Free" in FOSS was motivat
Nate Schindler wrote:
> There are two From lines in an incoming message, mail from, and the
> envelope from which is in the data portion.
Er, I think you're getting your terminology mixed up. Those are usually
considered to be the same thing (ie, the SMTP "MAIL FROM:" == envelope
sender). I thin
Matt Kettler wrote:
Given that it's been around for at least 6 years (I spotted it in a May
1998 post on usenet) I don't think FOSS is going anywhere.
I liked OSS better, but then several companies decided offering
high-dollar licenses to their code made them "open source software" and
diluted
>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:23 PM
>To: Chris Santerre; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: scan times up!
>
>
>At 05:10 PM 9/30/2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>Well...
>>
>>ver avg scan time
>>2.4x2.7 s
At 05:11 PM 9/30/2004, Will Yardley wrote:
Side note - who came up with this horrible acronym (I can't bring myself
to repeat it), and can people stop using it already!
Given that it's been around for at least 6 years (I spotted it in a May
1998 post on usenet) I don't think FOSS is going anywhere
> -Original Message-
> From: Will Yardley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:58 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: spoofed Received header
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:50:04PM -0700, Nate Schindler wrote:
>
> > I actually block all
At 05:10 PM 9/30/2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
Well...
ver avg scan time
2.4x2.7 seconds
3.0 30.4 seconds
OH MY! Network test :)
Ouch, that's slow.
Some points of interest that may be a part of the difference:
Do you have bayes enabled (a major consumer not present in 2.4,
particularly w
At 04:54 PM 9/30/2004, Tan, William wrote:
My
understanding is that the manual whitelist function in SA simply starts
the message scoring at -100. Is there a way to have spamc/spamd
abort scoring a message if the sender is whitelisted? I'd think
that this would improve performance on these mess
>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:05 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: 2.6 -> 3.0 migration questions
>
>
>At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
>>we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade d
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 05:04:35PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> > we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation
>
> Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better documentation?
> (General principle in FOSS: If you don't like
Well...
ver avg scan time
2.4x2.7 seconds
3.0 30.4 seconds
OH MY! Network test :)
Any longer and I might just be doing greylisting by accident. ;)
Chris Santerre
System Admin and SARE Ninja
http://www.rulesemporium.com
http://www.surbl.org
'It is not the strongest of the species th
At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation
Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better documentation?
(General principle in FOSS: If you don't like it, volunteer to help if
you're able.)
At least this time there is an UPG
My configuration is
Postfix 2.1.5 and SpamAssassin 3.0.0. We're using spamc as
a content_filter in /etc/postfix/master.cf to call
spamd.
My understanding is
that the manual whitelist function in SA simply starts the message scoring at
-100. Is there a way to have spamc/spamd abort scori
At 05:01 AM Thursday, 9/30/2004, John Fleming wrote -=>
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Kasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Preferred DNSBL
> Rejects Since Sunday 4:00 am via rbls:
>
> spamcop: 65
> maps rbl+: 154
> dsbl.org: 9
> njabl.org: 1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 04:31 PM 9/30/2004, Arun Bhalla wrote:
> > > >Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64. I run spamd (wit
> h
> > > >options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc. SA is installed
> > > >systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:40:18PM -0600, Lucas Albers wrote:
> Some options kick you in the face.
> Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting.
Ouch.
Is the list of deprecated options and directives in the UPGRADE
document definitive?
Here at Panix -- where we have a bunch of spam
At 04:31 PM 9/30/2004, Arun Bhalla wrote:
> >Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64. I run spamd (with
> >options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc. SA is installed
> >systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
> >also have my own user_prefs file tha
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 04:23 PM 9/30/2004, Arun Bhalla wrote:
> >Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64. I run spamd (with
> >options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc. SA is installed
> >systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
> >also have my
At 04:23 PM 9/30/2004, Arun Bhalla wrote:
Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64. I run spamd (with
options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc. SA is installed
systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
also have my own user_prefs file that I tweak.
Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64. I run spamd (with
options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc. SA is installed
systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
also have my own user_prefs file that I tweak.
I happen to get a fair amount of spam that
On 29 Sep 2004, at 16:10, Jay Hall wrote:
I changed the rules as you suggested, but e-mails with exe attachments
are still not being marked as SPAM. However, others are. Following
are the headers from an e-mail sent with an exe attachment.
These are not the headers you are looking for
You need
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:50:04PM -0700, Nate Schindler wrote:
> I actually block all incoming mail that claims to be from my domain.
> The only problem is that I don't get copies of messages that I send to
> some lists, such as this one. But... as far as I'm concerned, if a
> mail server isn't
On Sep 30, 2004, at 3:27 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
Yes, I asked SURBL a while back about this as well. I saw a slight
decline
during the Huricane weeks.
coincidentally, I saw a trickle to ZERO fax spams during that time as
well. got one last week, though. Always have the same "opt out" phone
I actually block all incoming mail that claims to be from my domain. The only
problem is that I don't get copies of messages that I send to some lists, such
as this one.
But... as far as I'm concerned, if a mail server isn't listed as an MX for
, it should use in the mail from or envelope
fro
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:10:07 -0400
AltGrendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed about at 10% decrease in spam since Florida started
> having all those problems with tropical weather.
>
> Anyone else notice this?
>
> I'm not trying to bash Florida, just something I noticed in the
> logs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> Very nice. Page 13: Detecting Hashbusters, 2, who the hell figured that out?
> Damn!
;)
> SARE has run into the problem that there isn't much NEW in spam to tag on.
> SA, SURBL, and SARE have 99% of everything covered. Like
Yes, I asked SURBL a while back about this as well. I saw a slight decline
during the Huricane weeks.
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: AltGrendel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:10 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Sorry Florida.
>
>
>I've
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:37 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: 'Spam Forensics: Reverse-Engineering Spammer Tactics'
>
>
>My slides from the presentation I gave at Toorcon 2004, 'Spam
>Foren
I've noticed about at 10% decrease in spam since Florida started having
all those problems with tropical weather.
Anyone else notice this?
I'm not trying to bash Florida, just something I noticed in the logs.
It's amazing how much better
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:42:59 +0200
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 30 September 2004 18:05, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> > While I can see the advantage of keeping awl and prefs in a sql
> > database, I can't see an advantage to keeping bayes data in a sql
> > db.
>
On 30 Sep 2004 at 9:00, Chip Paswater wrote:
> Does a human review the scores generated by the statistics engine?
>
> Doesn't it make sense to have more of a bell curve on the 2nd set of bayes
> scores?
>
> If not, why not?
>
> The teeth seem seem to be taken out of BAYES_99 with it's low 1.9 s
Yes, that sounds right... I remember that when I followed my exact same
instuctions on a new server, that it had these problems. Forgot about that. I
agree it is a problem with CygWin version.
I did notice some compiling issues with PERL 5.8 as well (even on the older,
stable CygWin versions)
Maurice Lucas wrote:
Hello,
I have trouble with SURBL and think that it is related to above error
But if I test the module with CPAN or with the following script it says
that i'm at 0.48.
(carefull i'm a complete perl newbie and a SA newbie)
#!/usr/bin/perl -T -w
use strict;
use Net::DNS;
print Ne
Daniel M. Drucker wrote:
I couldn't find anyone who has done this already, so I did it myself -
Nice work!
How does this interact with the use/nonuse of report_safe? It seems to
me that (with report_safe 1) you end up training bayes on the
encapsulation, or (with report_safe 0) you end up training
So, I take it that no one is seeing these weird spamd delays but me? Rats.
Shane Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-29 14:11]:
> Howdy all. I'm running version 3.0.0 on Gentoo Linux (using the
> 3.0.0-r1 ebuild). The machine is a dual P3/450 and it is also running
> sendmail 8.12.11 and it han
> I couldn't find anyone who has done this already, so I did it myself -
Nice work!
How does this interact with the use/nonuse of report_safe? It seems to
me that (with report_safe 1) you end up training bayes on the
encapsulation, or (with report_safe 0) you end up training it on the
reciprocal
I couldn't find anyone who has done this already, so I did it myself -
anyone who needs this is welcome to use my solution/code. My solution
requires an IMAP server and bayes to be in mysql. It also requires
SquirrelMail. It also requires a /tmp directory. Since squirrelmail
requires a unix-lik
ok, ok, my ponit wasn't exactly that, but I've managed to notice some
things, partly via Google.
My problem (or, to tell it better, the thing I didn't realize) was how
will SA get the username it is analizing mail for, since the vitual
users setting doesn't (at least to my knowledge) provide this i
Hello,
I have trouble with SURBL and think that it is related to above error
But if I test the module with CPAN or with the following script it says that
i'm at 0.48.
(carefull i'm a complete perl newbie and a SA newbie)
#!/usr/bin/perl -T -w
use strict;
use Net::DNS;
print Net::DNS->version, "\n"
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 14:47, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> > In fact, I cannot see anything in the headers that leads me to believe that
> > SURBL is being used/enforced.
>
> Do you have Net::DNS installed ? It looks to me you are not using RBL
> checks at all?
And make sure you're running a rece
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> > if the init.pre is never read from what you specify as --siteconfigpath,
> > that's a bug -- could you report it to the bugzilla?(however I'm
> > pretty ce
I've done a CPAN "force install Digest::SHA1" and get the same issue...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 07:47:35AM -0700, Andy Biddle wrote:
> > Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for non-method Digest::SHA1::sha1_hex() is
> > deprecated at
> > /usr/local/lib/perl5/si
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> if the init.pre is never read from what you specify as --siteconfigpath,
> that's a bug -- could you report it to the bugzilla?(however I'm
> pretty certain we have a test for that so that sounds odd.)
I think the issue is that in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:42:51PM +0200, Maurice Lucas wrote:
> > >OK - I think I have narrowed down what is happening with this, though I
> > >don't know why. I have placed my local.cf file in a non-standard
> > >directo
On Thursday 30 September 2004 15:37, Daniel M. Drucker wrote:
> I'm trying to start using Bayes and sa-learn for the first time, now
> that Bayes supports SQL.
>
> I run a smallish system (about 80 users spread over three domains).
> The basic setup is Exim -> SpamAssassin 3 -> Exim -> amavis -> Ex
On Thursday 30 September 2004 18:05, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> While I can see the advantage of keeping awl and prefs in a sql
> database, I can't see an advantage to keeping bayes data in a sql db.
>
> Can someone point out an advantage? Would there be any disadvantage in
> keeping everything exc
The problem has been resolved. In case anyone else has this issue in the
future, the problem was a blank clear_report_template definition in my
local.cf. removing it allowed SA to retrieve the info from 10_misc.cf
correctly.
-Slava>>> "Slava Madrit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9/30/2004 10:53:0
We use SA+Postfix+SASL+Mysql+procmail for our system.
The SASL authentication doesn't have anything to do with SA. It simply
allows your smtpd to accept AUTH commands; so you can deal with those
problems separately.
Also bear in mind that if you rig postfix to use mysql tables for it's
config;
It's definitely a problem with spamd, spamc running in cygwin had the
same problems as spamcpp, winspamc and my own custom spamc in .NET.
SpamD just sets the FIN flag before having sent the entire message.
Luckily I had an old Cygwin installation with Perl 5.8.0 where I just
installed SA3 and now t
Thanks to all who replied.
Unfortunately it appears that I'll have to update more than I wanted at one
time.
It does, however, seem worth the effort, based on the testing that I've been
doing with SA 3.0. It's tagging about 50% of the mail that is passing all of
my filters with with SA 2.6, an
While I can see the advantage of keeping awl and prefs in a sql
database, I can't see an advantage to keeping bayes data in a sql db.
Can someone point out an advantage? Would there be any disadvantage in
keeping everything except bayese in sql?
--
Robin Lynn Frank
Director of Operations
Paradi
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I was looking at the Bayes scores in 3.0 and had a couple of questions:
> [...]
>
>
> ... the FAQ ... read the FAQ ...
>
Great Bob, the FAQ says how the scores are generated, I surmised that.
But these questions aren't in the FAQ:
Does a human review the scores genera
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:42:51PM +0200, Maurice Lucas wrote:
> >OK - I think I have narrowed down what is happening with this, though I
> >don't know why. I have placed my local.cf file in a non-standard
> >directory and I am using the --siteconfigpath=path to point to that
> >directory (wher
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 07:47:35AM -0700, Andy Biddle wrote:
> Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for non-method Digest::SHA1::sha1_hex() is
> deprecated at
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.2/Mail/SpamAssassin/Bayes.pm line 983.
> Learned from 0 message(s) (1 message(s) examined).
> Can't locate auto/Di
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:34:28 -0700 Chip Paswater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I was looking at the Bayes scores in 3.0 and had a couple of questions:
[...]
... the FAQ ... read the FAQ ...
-- Bob
Hey guys,
I was looking at the Bayes scores in 3.0 and had a couple of questions:
score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.665 -2.599
score BAYES_05 0 0 -0.925 -0.413
score BAYES_20 0 0 -0.730 -1.951
score BAYES_40 0 0 -0.276 -1.096
score BAYES_50 0 0 1.567 0.001
score BAYES_60 0 0 3.515 0.372
score BAYE
Matt Kettler scribbled on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:31 PM:
> At 07:37 PM 9/29/2004 -0500, SAtalk Mail User wrote:
>> I have a, possibly, easy question. I have SpamAssassin 2.64 with a
>> ton of the rules that you have at rules emporium, and man they work
>> great, but I am wanting to upgrad
Hi, people, my first mail to the list, and I'm already asking for
something quite hard to me... Here it goes:
I want to set up a WBEL with SA 3.0, but with user preferences driven
by a Mysql database. Also, I want the MTA (PostFix) to run with SASL
authentication. I've found a good bunch of info on
When I run SA 3.0 from a command line, I get a message at the end of the SA
output file, (no report template found), you can see it below. I'm using
the following options to launch SA.
spamassassin -D -t test.txt
Has something changed with SA 3.0 or is there something wrong with my
setu
I recently sent out a request for help regarding always getting
"autolearn=unavailable" messages. When I try to train it with sa-learn, I
get:
Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for non-method Digest::SHA1::sha1_hex() is
deprecated at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.2/Mail/SpamAssassin/Bayes.pm line 9
Folks,
I'm running into a weird problem and I don't know what the cause is.
I'm running Qmail / Qmail-Scanner 1.22 / SA 2.63 / Clam AV 75.1
I have messages that all have the subject "Mail delivery failed", which the
message scores a negative number by SA and is delivered.
The problem is,
I'm trying to start using Bayes and sa-learn for the first time, now
that Bayes supports SQL.
I run a smallish system (about 80 users spread over three domains).
The basic setup is Exim -> SpamAssassin 3 -> Exim -> amavis -> Exim ->
delivery. (That is -- SA and amavis are Exim router-transport pi
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, John Fleming wrote:
I would say a simple "daemon" to tail -F the logfile (-F to cover
rotations, etc), and parse strings for the specific blocklist messages.
-Dan
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Kasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:49 PM
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Kasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Preferred DNSBL
> Rejects Since Sunday 4:00 am via rbls:
>
> spamcop: 65
> maps rbl+: 154
> dsbl.org: 9
> njabl.org: 18
> spamhaus: 18
What/how are you guys gathering t
How does one handle this in a shared server environment where there are many
domains on a single server with ONE mail instance? Does one have to run
steps 2-3 for each domain before you can restart spamd?
John
-Original Message-
From: Erik Wickstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wedn
OK - I think I have narrowed down what is happening with this, though I
don't know why. I have placed my local.cf file in a non-standard
directory and I am using the --siteconfigpath=path to point to that
directory (where my local.cf file and my own custom rules files are
located). For some r
Justin Mason wrote:
Well, it would be *nice*. I think it's reasonable to assume
that MIMEDefang and amavisd certainly need this, given the very
large amount of bug reports we've been getting.
Yes, it does make sense for MIMEDefang to list what version of
SpamAssassin is supported. I do not u
A.A.S Lottery Headquarters:
Customer Service
580 N. Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 85914
Euro - Afro Asian Sweepstake Lottery
an Affiliate of Foundmoney International
Arena Complex Km 18 Route de Rufisque
I.P.P Award Dept.
johannesburg, south africa.
Ref: EAASL/941OYI/03
Batch: 03/06/MA34
--
Ok,
hello,
i have just upgraded to spamassassin-3.0.0 and run it on a linux platform.
i have the following problem when reporting spam using "spamassassin -D -r",
towards the end of the output there is a delay (a few seconds) the i get:
debug: Razor2 is not available
SpamCop -> report to vmx2.spamco
Yeah, double-checked that first thing. It's definitely installed and at
the latest rev.
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 03:55 PM 9/29/2004 -0700, Andy Biddle wrote:
> >Okay, so I'm at a loss. I'm reasonably new to SpamAssassin and dealing
> >with spam filters in general, but I've
I forgot to mention that the only thing unusual about my local.cf file
is that it rewrites the Subject header differently than the standard
installed local.cf file. This same problem is also repeatable with
either spamassassin, or spamc/spamd when using the --siteconfigpath
directive.
--
Chris
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I notice several people here use PGP. If anyone wants to exchange
> PGP/GPG key signatures (i.e. "I'll sign yours if you sign mine") feel
> free to contact me via IM as "GushiDotOrg" or vi
OK - I think I have narrowed down what is happening with this, though I
don't know why. I have placed my local.cf file in a non-standard
directory and I am using the --siteconfigpath=path to point to that
directory (where my local.cf file and my own custom rules files are
located). For some r
At 03:55 PM 9/29/2004 -0700, Andy Biddle wrote:
Okay, so I'm at a loss. I'm reasonably new to SpamAssassin and dealing
with spam filters in general, but I've tried to do my homework and I'm
still having some trouble. If I look at all my headers, I never see the
autolearning work. Often it gets "
At 07:37 PM 9/29/2004 -0500, SAtalk Mail User wrote:
I have a, possibly, easy question. I have SpamAssassin 2.64 with a ton
of the rules that you have at rules emporium, and man they work great, but
I am wanting to upgrade my Spamassassin from 2.64 to 3.0.0, the latest via
CPAN.
1) delete antidrug
What method are you connecting to your CygWin SpamD?
Perhaps the problem is not with SpamD, but with SpamC. I noticed that the
new SA3.0 doesn't always fill the incoming TCP for your SpamC calling
application buffer... I use 1024 byte buffers. This may be throwing
whichever SpamC you are using i
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 4:58:21 PM, Christopher Jett wrote:
> Still not seeing any hits from SURBL. I do see hits from other RBL's.
[...]
> Tons of spam like this, but no SURBL hits at all. I just verified that
> my Net::DNS is up to date as well. I am at a loss to figure out why
>
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 3:31:22 PM, Nick Stephens wrote:
NS>> Raymond Dijkxhoorn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) RD wrote today:
>> Do you have Net::DNS installed ? It looks to me you are not using RBL checks
>> at all?
> I checked my perllocal.pod and saw no reference to NET::DNS on this box,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jay Hall wrote:
I am experiencing a problem with one of my rules that I
cannot seem to find.
I have the following rules defined.
rawbody __RAW_EXE_ATTACHMENT/filename=\".*\.exe\"/i
rawbody __RAW_VBS_ATTACHMENT/filename=\".*\.exe\"/i
rawbody __RAW_COM_ATTACHMENT/
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 11:44:28 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Our testing for FPs has gotten
> extremely better over the past few weeks. New tools and such.
Better for the new records, but we seem to keep finding FPs in
the old ones. We keep trying to track them down, but need
better too
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 11:50:02 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Yes very true. We also would like to include JP in the next mass checks,
> so we can see how scoring would look like in the current situation.
Yes, I believe Theo already added JP for scoring in 3.1.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
Justin Mason said:
> Well, it would be *nice*. I think it's reasonable to assume
> that MIMEDefang and amavisd certainly need this, given the very
> large amount of bug reports we've been getting.
We'll just make a wiki entry and naturally the popular software will be
updated with info on 3.0 c
Some options kick you in the face.
Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting.
I guess we can add in a wiki entry for upgrades from 3.0 instead of
forcing the dev's to document every nit-picking thing.
Some options are just ignored, eg, no backward compatibility.
bayes autolearn cha
95 matches
Mail list logo
