Hi!
Change this to 'body'
(Just found this myself. Thanks for the input)
From Changelog:
-
r54022 | felicity | 2004-10-07 22:21:30 + (Thu, 07 Oct 2004) | 1
line
bug 3734: uridnsbl rules work on body data, not header data, so change
the rule type from header to body
-
What file
On Sunday 24 October 2004 02:06 pm, John Andersen wrote:
> After 3.0.1 install I get this in my logs?
>
> Oct 24 13:54:42 pen spamd[7522]: Use of uninitialized value in
> concatenation (.) or string
> at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/NoMailAudit.pm line
> 184.
>
> Oct 24 13:54:42
On Sunday 24 October 2004 01:16 pm, Burnie wrote:
> "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
> > headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
>
> ^^
>
> Change this to 'body'
>
> (Just found this myself. Thanks for the
After 3.0.1 install I get this in my logs?
Oct 24 13:54:42 pen spamd[7522]: Use of uninitialized value in concatenation
(.) or string
at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/NoMailAudit.pm line 184.
Oct 24 13:54:42 pen spamd[7522]: Use of uninitialized value in pattern match
(m//)
- Original Message -
From: "Burnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
> > headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
> ^^
>
> Change this to 'body'
>
> (Just found this myself.
"Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
> headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
^^
Change this to 'body'
(Just found this myself. Thanks for the input)
>From Changelog:
-
r54022 | felicity | 2004-10-07
On Sunday, October 24, 2004, 8:43:16 AM, Fred Bacon wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 10:19, Chris wrote:
>>
>> Peter, as shown below, network checks and the SURBL's have no problems
>> picking up the Rolex stuff:
> Ah, but it is still useful for those of us waiting for a suitable moment
> to upgra
On Sunday, October 24, 2004, 9:57:21 AM, marti marti wrote:
> I have just upgraded to V 3 and have noticed the bayes_99 scoring is a lot
> lower, checking out the scores shows the scores are lower(RHS) for 99 than
> 95 and that lower than 80, assuming this is wrong what should the scores be
> scor
Hi!
endif # Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
=
The only difference is that I have my scores included in my .cf file.
Raymond, where do you locate your scores?
Inside the local.cf, but ALSO do a
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
and
endif # Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URI
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > =
> > ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
> >
> > urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
> > headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
> > describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Contai
Hi!
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains a URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist
tflagsURIBL_JP_SURBL net
score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0
urir
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi!
>
> > They are, 100%, all other URIBL checks are just processed ok, ones that
i
> > have inside my local.cf are skipped.
>
> Ok, update. I got it working putting ALL the tags that are related to
> URIBL inside the
Bowie Bailey wrote:
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:15 PM 10/22/2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Just to clarify a little.
There's --mbox, for mbox formatted files, --mbx for mbx formatted
files, --file for a single message, and --dir for a directory of
files with 1 message p
Hi!
They are, 100%, all other URIBL checks are just processed ok, ones that i
have inside my local.cf are skipped.
Ok, update. I got it working putting ALL the tags that are related to
URIBL inside the plugin fields. This was not needed with 3.0.0, but it
seems mandatory with 3.0.1.
Its now ins
Hi!
Make sure the plugin is loaded in init.pre. Also, try sending a test
message (see the SURBL web site or this list's recent archives for details)
while running SA in debug mode to confirm whether the checks are really
being skipped.
They are, 100%, all other URIBL checks are just processed o
Hi!
The first two are typically very heavy hitters for me, so to see no hits
since the upgrade is strange. Is anyone else that has upgrade to SA 3.0.1
seeing the same results?
Make sure the plugin is loaded in init.pre. Also, try sending a test message
(see the SURBL web site or this list's rec
Hi!
All SA defined URIBL tests are working fine, it just the ones that I have
defined personally in a uribl.cf file in /etc/mail/spamassassin that are not
working. These all worked fine with all of the SA 3.0.0 release candidates
and with the 3.0.0 release, however, they are not working now since
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The last hit I've seen from any of the following privately defined URIBL
> > lists was Oct 22 21:09:04, which is when I upgraded to SA 3.0.1:
> > =
> > urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
> > header
- Original Message -
From: "Sahil Tandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The first two are typically very heavy hitters for me, so to see no hits
> > since the upgrade is strange. Is anyone else that has upgrade to SA
3.0.1
> > seeing the same results?
>
> Make sure the plugin is loaded in init
Hi Bill,
The last hit I've seen from any of the following privately defined URIBL
lists was Oct 22 21:09:04, which is when I upgraded to SA 3.0.1:
=
urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Contain
Bill Landry wrote:
The first two are typically very heavy hitters for me, so to see no hits
since the upgrade is strange. Is anyone else that has upgrade to SA 3.0.1
seeing the same results?
Make sure the plugin is loaded in init.pre. Also, try sending a test
message (see the SURBL web site or t
I upgraded to 3.0.1 and noticed the following running "make test"
t/dnsbl.Bareword found in conditional at t/dnsbl.t line 15.
Lines 14 & 15:
use constant DO_RUN => TEST_ENABLED && HAS_SPFQUERY &&
!(AM_ROOT && !IS_LINUX);
All the tests completed ok
The last hit I've seen from any of the following privately defined URIBL
lists was Oct 22 21:09:04, which is when I upgraded to SA 3.0.1:
=
urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains a URL l
I have just upgraded to V 3 and have noticed the bayes_99 scoring is a lot
lower, checking out the scores shows the scores are lower(RHS) for 99 than
95 and that lower than 80, assuming this is wrong what should the scores be
score BAYES_60 0 0 3.515 0.372
score BAYES_80 0 0 3.608 2.087
score BAYE
On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 10:19, Chris wrote:
>
> Peter, as shown below, network checks and the SURBL's have no problems
> picking up the Rolex stuff:
Ah, but it is still useful for those of us waiting for a suitable moment
to upgrade from SA 2.64 to 3.0.1. The time-line at my place of work is
the
On Sunday 24 October 2004 08:35 am, Peter Clark wrote:
> Apparently hawking Rolexes is the in thing with spammers these days. I
> haven't seen any rulesets around that would help combat it, so I wrote
> one.
>
> It's available at http://www.violetdreams.com/sa/rolex.cf if anyone would
> like to t
Apparently hawking Rolexes is the in thing with spammers these days. I
haven't seen any rulesets around that would help combat it, so I wrote
one.
It's available at http://www.violetdreams.com/sa/rolex.cf if anyone would
like to try it or critique it.
It was written and tested under SA 3.0.1
On Thursday, I bit the bullet and upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63. The new release had been out a month, and 2.63 just wasn't doing a good job tagging the spam. My server is RedHat 8.0. PIII-1GHz with 512MB of RAM and SCSI RAID-0. I'm using "lock_method flock" in my local.cf file. I'm running qmai
Hi,
I just installed 3.01. When i revised headers I can see no test is
executed:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on s2.landm.net
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No score=0.0 tests=none autolearn=ham
tests=none.
Does it mean no test is executed ?
This is my local.cf:
I am new and working on setting up Spamassasin 2.64 with Postfix. I would
like to know if you can point me to the right site and directions to setup
spamassassin to work with postfix. I would like to configure it the most
efficient way. Can you lead me to any docs to help me. Can you also h
From: "einheit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Pierre Thomson wrote:
>
> >SpamAssassin flagged this just now, and MailScanner removed it from the
stream. The main hits were DCC and RBL related.
> >
> >Good work, SA!
> >
> >http://frodo.bruderhof.com/redhat.txt
> >
> >
> Nice - SA detected bogosity in this
Good day, all,
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Pierre Thomson wrote:
> SpamAssassin flagged this just now, and MailScanner removed it from the
> stream. The main hits were DCC and RBL related.
>
> http://frodo.bruderhof.com/redhat.txt
I'm glad to see the offending file has been removed from
Stanf
32 matches
Mail list logo
