> I know (I read changelog now) ... sorry.
> But I have problem with this combination (SA3 + amavisd-new-20030616-p10):
> Oct 5 15:33:11 x amavis[25039]: (24614-01) ESMTP: 500 5.5.2
> Error: bad syntax; PENALIZE: ...
> FIY: After "PENALIZE:" is only one line from email source.
Something
Hi,
Well, what I thought was fixed with the /root problem with a -u Spamd
user in spamd has not gone away, spamd is still trying to create
everything with root privileges. Do the devs have any ideas for me ?
Regards,
Rick
Hello, spamassassinners.
I have some question about AWL, perhaps they're classified in novis class.
If my questions are FAQ, simply give me only pointer to the documents,
please.
(1) How to monitor AWL registered listings?
In my spambox, there are many various scored mail address.
I want
Hi,
Regarding my strange problem of spamd writing to /root/.spamassassin
instead of /home/Spamd/.spamassassin, it seems that the -u parameter to
spamd can NOT follow a -i parameter. If it does, spamd runs as root
instead of the user specified with the -u parameter.
Just FYI.
Regards,
Rick
Replying to myself for the sake of others with this problem. Please seem
post here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=amavis-user&m=109604895419150&w=2
Iain Pople wrote:
Hi,
I am using amavisd-new version 20030616p10 and Spam Assassin 3.0 debian
packages from backports.org. The MTA is postfix 2.1.1
From: "martin f krafft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You are not being sensible, sir. It's time for me to stick you into
my procmail file gone forever.
{+_+}
From: "martin f krafft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>also sprach jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1158 +0200]:
>> Feed us spam, please. Avoid the middle man. It makes our response
>> quicker.
>
> Should I set up an autoreply to all my spam from the address of the
> list, or simply forward all my spam?
Hi,
I'm running spamd on it's own server with the following command line
(under daemontools)
exec /usr/local/bin/spamd -q -x -m 10 --max-conn-per-child=20 -i
206.123.6.18 -A 206.123.6.19,206.123.6.18,216.162.64.120 -u Spamd 2>&1
@4000416c5cba146a3c04 Cannot open bayes databases
/root/.spam
At 05:37 PM 10/12/2004, Brett Romero wrote:
What is this test:
MISSING_SUBJECT 1.40 Missing Subject: header
The above test is for this header:
Todd's comments about RM being a marketing company noted, but also RM's
relatively clean reputation on NANAE, and claimed strong antispam policies,
Fred wrote:
> Another strange one is that I got ALL_TRUSTED and there were no received
> headers to go on.. Is this to be expected?
Yup. ALL_TRUSTED means NO_NONTRUSTED - there are certainly no untrusted
Received headers.
Also, zero is even, and the empty string is a palindrome.
Generically, al
Brett Romero wrote:
> I sent the following message through SA 3.0 on Windows.
>
>
> The following were returned:
> UPPERCASE_25_50 0.10 message body is 25-50% uppercase
> MISSING_SUBJECT 1.40 Missing Subject: header
> ALL_TRUSTED -2.80 Did not pass through any untrusted hosts
>
You really think someone is going to answer that question for you at
realmagnet.com?
MagnetMail E-mail Marketing Solutions
MagnetMail is a powerful e-marketing tool for creating measurable and
coordinated e-mail, fax, and direct mail campaigns.
It has these key advantages:
* Ease of use. No
What is this test:
MISSING_SUBJECT 1.40 Missing Subject: header
The above test is for this header:
Reply-To: "Brett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Brett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: testing JS 2
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:00:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipa
At 04:22 PM 10/12/2004, Brett Romero wrote:
I sent the following message through SA 3.0 on Windows.
testing
The following were returned:
UPPERCASE_25_50 0.10 message body is 25-50% uppercase
MISSING_SUBJECT 1.40 Missing Subject: header
ALL_TRUSTED -2.80 Did not pass through any
I am trying to make Spam Assassin 3.0 redirect all tagged spam emails to one
file in /var/spool/SPAM instead of ever having it show up in the individual
users email boxes. I've got spamassassin working now (thanks, theo and matt)
and it seems to be running through procmail, but it doesnt seem to r
Brett Romero wrote:
>> Where is the JS/EXE test?
>
> The MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE test was removed in 3.0, it seems.
> I guess they
> want to thicken the line between antivirus, and antispam. *shrug*
> Fine with me.
That leaves open the question of a "JS" test - are/were there any tests that
penaliz
yup. ;)
wonder if anybody's filed a bug about that - maybe standard html tags should be
ignored in the uppercase tests.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Romero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:44 PM
To: Nate Schindler
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re:
- Original Message -
From: "Nate Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brett Romero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: JS and EXE test isn't working?
-Original Message-
From: Brett Romero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Romero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: JS and EXE test isn't working?
>
> Where is the JS/EXE test?
The MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE test was removed in 3.0, it seems. I guess they want
to
>-Original Message-
>From: Jonathan Nichols [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:23 PM
>To: Keith Hackworth
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: *SPAM* feeding frenzy for ws.surbl.org!!!
>
>
>Keith Hackworth wrote:
>
>> I just got a gold-mine for surbl c
I sent the following message through SA 3.0 on Windows.
alert(test this);
testing
The following were returned:
UPPERCASE_25_50 0.10 message body is 25-50% uppercase
MISSING_SUBJECT 1.40 Missing Subject: header
ALL_TRUSTED -2.80 Did not pass through any untrusted hosts
All -
Using the spamassassin.spec file that is included in the Mail-
SpamAssassin-3.0.0.tar.bz2 file, I run
rpmbuild -ba spamassassin.spec
It runs along fine for a while, then it ends with:
+ /usr/bin/make spamc/libspamc.so
/usr/bin/make -f spamc/Makefile spamc/libspamc.so
make[1]: Entering
It is my goal to act like a twelve year old until I'm ashes. :)
So nanny nanny boo booo.whatever you say bounces
;)
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: snowjack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:57 PM
>To: jdow; users@spamassassin.apache.org
>S
A computer, internet access, and an email account.
--Chris (You said quick!)
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:39 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Quick setup question
>
>
>Just real quick if you started
I use a quick grep to pull up stats for problem users. I think Dallas's
script could be changed around pretty easy to look up users instead of
rules.
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:07 AM
>To: Spamassassin-Tal
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:32 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: SpamAssassin not following rules set in procmailrc
> or local.cf
>
> I am running SA 3.0 on a Mandrake 10.1 server with Procmail
As Usual, you're all quite helpful! Thank you!
> From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:52:36 -0400
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Subject: Re: spam slippin through
>
> At 12:25 PM 10/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> running a site wide SA 2.6
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:32:11PM -0600, Joe Jenkins wrote:
> check the headers and see the stuff SA adds. When it IS spam, it gets tagged
> properly in the headers but the subject is not being rewritten and the email
> is
> not being redirected to the /var/spool/mail/STOPPED_SPAM file as I indi
I am running SA 3.0 on a Mandrake 10.1 server with Procmail / Sendmail
spamd is running and I have set up my procmailrc to send all stopped spam to a
file: /var/spool/mail/STOPPED_SPAM (procmailrc at end of this post)
Also, I have set up local.cf to rewrite the subject. (see config below)
spamd i
Try implementing SpamCop URI checks or upgrade to SA 3.0 you will get
rid of these unstoppable spam mails. I got amazing results after
implementing URI checks.
Rakesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
running a site wide SA 2.6 setup, some XXX html only mails are impossible to
stop, getting scores as low
> running a site wide SA 2.6 setup, some XXX html only mails
> are impossible to
> stop, getting scores as low as 2.0
>
> the email just calls images, and thats about it. should i
> paste the subject
> here, they are quite distinct, and im sure others are getting them.
You really need to upgrade
> -Original Message-
> From: Kelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:57 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RBL Misfires?
> Most likely scenario:
>
> 1. Someone erroneously reports the domain name to SURBL.
> 2. You receive and scan the messa
If its the spam I think it is, I stopped it by using the SARE_70_HTML1.CF file
and adding this to my local.cf
score SARE_HTML_A_HIDE 5.0
They always hit this rule ;)
Shawn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:26
Nate Schindler wrote:
> awesome! looks like it removes addresses seen only once.
By design. I figured that the addresses with single entries were the
ones most likely to be spam... and so the ones least usefully kept in
the AWL. In one extreme case IIRC it dropped the AWL file from ~5M to
~80K
Nate Schindler wrote:
Once in a while, I notice a hit for an RBL-related test that seems a
little off. When I check for the existance of a record in the list, I
can't find one. Below is a match SA 3 found in an e-mail from one of
our dealers. I thought it was curious that they were listed, so
At 01:28 PM 10/12/2004, Nate Schindler wrote:
Once in a while, I notice a hit for an RBL-related test that seems a
little off. When I check for the existance of a record in the list, I
can't find one. Below is a match SA 3 found in an e-mail from one of our
dealers. I thought it was curious t
Apparently my request was not deemed worthy of a reply. For anybody
who may look for such information in the archives I'll note that I
simply backed up my Bayes databases and installed 3.0.0--everything
appears to be working fine.
Ted Heise
--I assume it
is something everybody else
On Fri, 8
On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 09:31, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 10:26 PM 10/8/2004 -0700, Jerry wrote:
> >I am using the command:
> >
> >spamassassin --add-to-blacklist (message filename)
> >
> >For it to scan the filename and add the senders email address to the black
> >list.
>
> That's largely worthless.
Title: RBL Misfires?
Once in a while, I notice a hit for an RBL-related test that seems a little off. When I check for the existance of a record in the list, I can't find one. Below is a match SA 3 found in an e-mail from one of our dealers. I thought it was curious that they were listed,
also sprach Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1851 +0200]:
> hold on a minute guys -- this is a FAQ.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DoYouWantMySpam
/me sits back and sighs
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<
At 12:25 PM 10/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
running a site wide SA 2.6 setup, some XXX html only mails are impossible to
stop, getting scores as low as 2.0
the email just calls images, and thats about it. should i paste the subject
here, they are quite distinct, and im sure others are getting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
martin f krafft writes:
> also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1420 +0200]:
> > > Only forward spam that SpamAssassin does not currently
> > > automatically detect correctly.
> >
> > All of it?
>
> And with or without Bayesian
running a site wide SA 2.6 setup, some XXX html only mails are impossible to
stop, getting scores as low as 2.0
the email just calls images, and thats about it. should i paste the subject
here, they are quite distinct, and im sure others are getting them.
http://www.rulesemporium.com/ is working for me...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:31:36 -0700, p dont think
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI, we are planning to extend the following wrapper method by spitting
> out a temporary conf file with the correct username in it, and deleting
> the conf file when done:
>
> http://jousset.org/pub/sa-postfix.en.html
I’m seeing the
following error at the end of a spamasassin –D run on some messages:
debug: Razor2: spam report,
response is "1".
debug: leaving helper-app
run mode
debug: SpamAssassin: spam
reported to Razor.
1 message(s) examined.
Insecure dependency in
connect while running with -
Jeff Chan wrote on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:29:53 -0700:
> Send one example of each new class of spam, but be sure that it's
> not detected already in standard installations. I'd say include
> the Bayesian scoring. What do others say?
>
Why not put up a list which discusses only rules and also accep
At 08:33 AM 10/12/2004, Ronan wrote:
the following error is being thrown at me.
I have tried adding the switch "--with-version=3" and also with 3.0 and
3.0.0 but still doesnt work.
Anyclues?
SA 3.0 appears to require the Mime::Base64 perl module. This module was
optional in 2.63 , but it seems t
Gerry Doris wrote:
I managed to destroy my bayes database...don't ask.
Since I only run a home system and don't receive a heavy flow of spam I
really like to skip the wait for bayes to get up to speed. Is it
recommended to use the public corpus on the SA website or is it too old
for proper trainin
Jason Frisvold wrote:
You mean this?
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3766
Awesome, thanks for the link :)
It's always interesting to watch the flow of thinking for something
like this... I can agree with both sides of the permissions issue...
In my case, the only users with dir
>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:18 AM
>To: Thomas Kinghorn; Spamassassin-Talk
>([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Subject: Re: inconsistencies in message checking
>There's no actual drug names in the subject or body of the
>untagged
If you "man spamd" or "netstat -an", you'll notice that it listens by
default on 127.0.0.1:783.
The log entries would presumably represent the tcp connections made from
spamc to spamd.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9
Watching the maillogs with SA 2.6 each call of spamd comes with this:
Oct 12 09:47:24 mail spamd[15997]: connection from localhost.localdomain
[127.0.0.1] at port 51225
and the following call the port increments upward. What is this?
Martin f krafft wrote on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:53:33 +0200:
> I am not here to discuss religion but usability of your mailing
> list.
>
Martin, you "discussed" it in a way I would call religious and the
religion being "mutt". Thanks for "shutting up". :-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
G
Thomas Kinghorn wrote on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:57:42 +0200:
> Anyone having problems getting to the SARE website?
>
Still? None at all here.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.
Thanks Matt
Regards,
Tom
-Original Message-
>From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 12 October 2004 14:21
>To: martin f krafft
>Cc: Spamassassin-Talk ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Subject: Re: inconsistencies in message checking
>At 09:01 AM 10/12/2004 +0200, martin f krafft wro
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:33:21 +0100 Ronan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the following error is being thrown at me.
> I have tried adding the switch "--with-version=3" and also with 3.0 and
> 3.0.0 but still doesnt work.
>
> Anyclues?
...
> The error was:
> version.h.pl: version.h.pl: version
the following error is being thrown at me.
I have tried adding the switch "--with-version=3" and also with 3.0 and
3.0.0 but still doesnt work.
Anyclues?
Im compiling then gonna upgrade over v2.63.
thanks
Ronan
# make
cp spamd/spamd blib/script/spamd
/usr/local/bin/perl -I/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6
> You mean this?
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3766
Awesome, thanks for the link :)
It's always interesting to watch the flow of thinking for something
like this... I can agree with both sides of the permissions issue...
In my case, the only users with direct access to the
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 5:22:50 AM, martin krafft wrote:
> also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1420 +0200]:
>> > Only forward spam that SpamAssassin does not currently
>> > automatically detect correctly.
>>
>> All of it?
> And with or without Bayesian stuff enabled?
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
> I do not want to start a flamewar, but I do wonder why you all opted
> for ezmlm. It's working and all that, but as with any DJB software,
Quite honestly, though, the SpamAssassin folks didn't "opt" for ezmlm.
Apache.org uses ezmlm, and when SA was
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1420 +0200]:
> > Only forward spam that SpamAssassin does not currently
> > automatically detect correctly.
>
> All of it?
And with or without Bayesian stuff enabled?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\__
At 09:01 AM 10/12/2004 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
stop forwarding your spam to lists! cut it to the bare essentials.
Why not? If the example is illustrative of the problem it's perfectly
acceptable for him to forward spam to this list. It's always been that way
on this list. (however, pure mbo
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1414 +0200]:
> Only forward spam that SpamAssassin does not currently
> automatically detect correctly.
All of it?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTE
At 07:23 AM 10/12/2004 +0200, Thomas Kinghorn wrote:
I have 2 messages, where the bodies are the same.
No, you have two messages with similar bodies, but they are definitely not
the same.
There's a lot of the same text, but the last line and the subject are very
different in each.
SA handles th
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 3:03:11 AM, martin krafft wrote:
> also sprach jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1158 +0200]:
>> Feed us spam, please. Avoid the middle man. It makes our response
>> quicker.
> Should I set up an autoreply to all my spam from the address of the
> list, or simply fo
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:56:18AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>also sprach Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0946 +0200]:
>> This is not quantum physics, maybe mutt has some features to help
>> you with the tough task of posting to this list ?
>No, because mutt cannot and should not control t
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 21:18 -0600, Lance wrote:
> Alright, we're running courier IMAP along with pop3 but our spool is all
> Maildir format. I've got a public spam folder for certain people so
> what would the sa-learn command be?
>
> sa-learn --spam /var/spool/mail/unixvault.net/shared/.Spam/cur
also sprach jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1158 +0200]:
> Feed us spam, please. Avoid the middle man. It makes our response
> quicker.
Should I set up an autoreply to all my spam from the address of the
list, or simply forward all my spam?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday, October 11, 2004, 11:56:19 PM, martin krafft wrote:
> > Would you please consider not forwarding your spam to mailing lists?
> > Dude, this is the SA mailing list, what do you think runs on
> > people's servers? And what do you think this software
also sprach Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1131 +0200]:
> Again, discussing religion is off-topic here, really.
I am not here to discuss religion but usability of your mailing
list.
But hey, since nobody seems to care, and mutt *does* provide for
broken setups (again), I'll shut up.
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 2:23:57 AM, martin krafft wrote:
> also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1115 +0200]:
>> FWIW, the usual sequence in reporting new (undetected) classes of
>> spam is:
>>
>> 1. Post an instance of it on this discussion list.
> Post an instance of it
Martin f krafft wrote on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:56:18 +0200:
> No, because mutt cannot and should not control the envelope sender.
Discussing religion is off-topic here, really.
> ezmlm is fundamentally broken, so I am trying to alert people to
Again, discussing religion is off-topic here, really.
On Monday, October 11, 2004 6:48 PM, Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Brodbelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[...]
>> Aha. Whoever put together the package on backports.org omitted that
>> file from the docs I'd still contend it should be in UPGRADE
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1115 +0200]:
> It's been mentioned before several times on this list. Otherwise
> all I can say is that it's standard practice. :-)
Well, I am not here to argue, but apparently the anti-spam lists to
which I subscribe do not follow the standa
Hi!
I'm experiencing a problem I can't find references to in the FAQs/mailing lists.
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.0, spamass-milter 0.2.0 and sendmail 8.12.11.
When I configure SpamAssassin to modify the subject of spam, the headers break
up in 2 pieces...up to and including the Subject header remain
also sprach Nick Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1108 +0200]:
> It can, the option is called "envelope_from", and it's designed for
> situations like yours (and mine).
Oh wow, I am totally out of the loop. This certainly did not exist
when I hand-crafted my configuration file. Is there an
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 2:01:01 AM, martin krafft wrote:
> also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1030 +0200]:
>> It's generally considered poor practice to apply spam filters
>> to spam discussions.
> Do you have a reference for this "general consideration"? I am on
> plenty
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:56:18AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0946 +0200]:
> > This is not quantum physics, maybe mutt has some features to help
> > you with the tough task of posting to this list ?
>
> No, because mutt cannot and should not
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1030 +0200]:
> This only applies to spams that SpamAssassin does not already
> successfully detect, i.e. new, undetected classes.
Well, with Bayesian filtering, it is perfectly possible that many
spam filters already catch such a message.
> >
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 12:39:20 AM, martin krafft wrote:
> also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0931 +0200]:
>> Well in some cases, such as debugging an undetected spam, it's
>> quite useful to see the entire message to determine whether the
>> results can be duplicated on a
also sprach Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0946 +0200]:
> Who cares what software is being used ?
Well, if the software lowers the usability, people should care.
> This is not quantum physics, maybe mutt has some features to help
> you with the tough task of posting to this list ?
No, beca
On 10/12/2004 9:26 AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
I do not want to start a flamewar, but I do wonder why you all opted
for ezmlm. It's working and all that, but as with any DJB software,
it just does not give a flying food about how things should be done,
or are done in the rest of the world; ins
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0931 +0200]:
> Well in some cases, such as debugging an undetected spam, it's
> quite useful to see the entire message to determine whether the
> results can be duplicated on another system. If so, it can be
> a genuine bug in SA. So there are
also sprach Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0926 +0200]:
> man spamassassin.
Mh. Believe it or not, I never noticed the long descriptions to the
manpage. Sorry for the noise, and thanks for your answer.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.
On Monday, October 11, 2004, 11:56:19 PM, martin krafft wrote:
> Would you please consider not forwarding your spam to mailing lists?
> Dude, this is the SA mailing list, what do you think runs on
> people's servers? And what do you think this software does with you
> post?
> Apart, we all get ple
Hi all,
First of all, thank you for SpamAssassin and this mailing list.
I have been able to extract many useful ideas in the past weeks.
I would like to voice my concern with the lists setup though.
Apparently it is subscriber-only (which is good), but as it uses
ezmlm, it falls short in exactly
On 10/6/2004 2:39 PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
When relearning a false-positive as ham, I wonder whether it's
necessary to invoke `spamassassin -rR` as well as `sa-learn --ham`,
or does either call the other?
What does `spamassassin -r` do exactly? Revoking spam could be
a plethora of things.
H
stop forwarding your spam to lists! cut it to the bare essentials.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the
also sprach Keith Hackworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.11.1820 +0200]:
> I just got a gold-mine for surbl canidates "wanna-bes" in a single spam
> message. There's WAY too many domains listed below to add to SURBL
> through the web pages. Is there a "bulk add" option to add to the
> ws.surbl.or
When relearning a false-positive as ham, I wonder whether it's
necessary to invoke `spamassassin -rR` as well as `sa-learn --ham`,
or does either call the other?
What does `spamassassin -r` do exactly? Revoking spam could be
a plethora of things.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart
That works great, even with exim and not sendmail.
Anyone know of a way to log the to receivers of spam?
Tom
> > Anyone know of a good log analyzer for a sendmail/SA setup?
> >
> >
>
> You need SA 3.0 to get the rule stats, I don't believe 2.6x logged rules.
> If you do upgrade, grab a copy
Jeremy Rumpf wrote:
> I've seen a few messages recently that contained the header
>
> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: PoHgCaAr
I thought X-message-flag was used by microsoft outlook to populate
a highlighted part of the header when viewing the message. There
was also no way to turn it of
Anyone having problems getting to the SARE website?
Regards,
Tom
Hi List.
I have 2 messages, where the bodies are the same.
1 scored 3.5, the other 6.3
Why is this? Way to may MEDS are coming through.
TAGGED MESSAGE HEADER:
Received: from jp-mx-1.mtnns.net ([209.212.97.2]) by protea.int.citec.net
with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Versio
Try the documentation. A veritable wealth of mind blowing details
on how to get SA up and running.
At 7:38pm -0700 10/11/04, Robert Bartlett wrote:
Just real quick if you started from scratch what would you recommend as a
good setup for SA?
Thanks
Ed Kasky
Randomly Generated Quote:
Never l
Hi,
I am using amavisd-new version 20030616p10 and Spam Assassin 3.0 debian
packages from backports.org. The MTA is postfix 2.1.1
I get the following error messages if I enable spam filtering:
Oct 12 11:53:06 stan.brunny.com amavisd-new[23072]: (22857-01) ESMTP:
500 5.5.2 Error: bad syntax; PENALIZ
> BTW: Thanks to trying understand my english! :D
You have good English! I'd have a much harder time understanding your
Portugese, even though I'm sure it is excellent. :-)
Loren
Hello Loren,
Seems to be working now... I think you're right.
This is the command line I'm using now:
/usr/bin/spamd -d -m 10 -v -u vpopmail --max-conn-per-child=1 \
-r /var/run/spamd/spamd.pid --siteconfigpath=/etc/mail/spamassassin \
--configpath=/usr/share/spamassassin -s /var/log/spamd.log
I think you should check the SpamAssassin wiki for the solution to your
problem
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesInSpamAssassin
Rakesh
Lance wrote:
Alright, we're running courier IMAP along with pop3 but our spool is all
Maildir format. I've got a public spam folder for certain people so
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
