I installed a newer Fedora system today and SA along with Sendmail and
Procmail are throwing errors related to individual users .forward files
and in general anything in the user directory.
I was using SA 2.64 on an older Redhat system and everything was fine.
Now I am inundated with errors for ev
Earthlink keeps trying to get me to turn on their spam blocker. There is
a minor detail. It scores 5.1 with a 5.0 limit. Somehow, I just thought
that was too funny for words.
{^_-}
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:57:33 -0500, you wrote:
>> I haven't looked at sa-stats.pl from the tools dir in awhile,
>> but since
>> upgrading to 3.0.2, I thought I'd look at it again. Anyone
>> have an idea
>> why it returns all zeros? Does it even work with v3? And yes, I'm
>> calling SA with sp
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:49:07 -0400 (EDT), "Tuc at Beach House"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The reason I joined was that I recently upgraded my FreeBSD box from 2.64
> to 3.0.1_1 (Not sure what about it makes it _1, but thats ok)
>
> As soon as I did, the amount of spam I started getting as
> Out of addled curiosity (not pointing specifically at you David) why has
> nobody mentioned the traditional "SpamAssassin is slow" mantra, "Try
> more memory?"
I think because memory does not seem to be an issue for me. I have 1GB RAM
and each spamd process sits at around 34MB. I don't have a
Kurt,
> I've lost track of your original post, but I do have a quick question.
>
> From what little I do remember of your postings, I believe that you were
> running SA on FreeBSD.
Sorry, no, this is a Fedora Core 2 machine
> From reading several FreeBSD lists, HT is problematic, and often red
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Jeff Ramsey wrote:
>
> > Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63? I'm running 2.63
> > and my friend who owns an ISP just upgraded to ver 3, and he claims that
> > 2.63
> > stopped more spam.
> >
>
> My experience is that (aside from spamd memo
I have setup SA to use a site-wide autowhitelist as described in the
SA3.01 README, but I don't think it is working.
I added the following lines to my local.cf file:
auto_whitelist_path /var/spool/spamassassin/auto-whitelist
auto_whitelist_file_mode 0666
So far the file /v
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:21:59 -0700, Jeff Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63?
[...]
Using it in local only mode, though, I've found it not very different.
The spams that get through 3.x that do not ge
At 04:42 PM 10/29/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the responses. Good explanations that make perfect sense.
SO.. now that I'm past the hex-in-db issue, I clearly do have some issue
nonetheless. The following spam got through with a score of -4.3,
seemingly because of the AWL. My AWL,
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Pineau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: sa-stats.pl
>
>
> I haven't looked at sa-stats.pl from the tools dir in awhile,
> but since
> upgrading to 3.0.2, I thought I'd look at it again. Anyone
> have an idea
> why it returns all zeros? Does it ev
On 29-Oct-04, at 3:28 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:31:59PM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
debug: Conf::SQL: executing SQL: SELECT preference, value FROM
userpref
WHERE username = 'jason-at-lixfeld.ca' OR username = '$GLOBAL' OR
username = CONCAT('%','lixfeld.ca') ORDER BY user
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Jeff Ramsey wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63? I'm running 2.63
and my friend who owns an ISP just upgraded to ver 3, and he claims that 2.63
stopped more spam.
My experience is that (aside from spamd memory issues), v3 is much
better at catc
Thanks for the responses. Good explanations that make perfect sense.
SO.. now that I'm past the hex-in-db issue, I clearly do have some issue
nonetheless. The following spam got through with a score of -4.3, seemingly
because of the AWL. My AWL, however is empty per tools/check_whitelist. How
I'm still using it on sa3 and it works great. Make sure you're logging
verbosely.
Matt
Frank Pineau wrote:
I haven't looked at sa-stats.pl from the tools dir in awhile, but since
upgrading to 3.0.2, I thought I'd look at it again. Anyone have an idea
why it returns all zeros? Does it even work
I haven't looked at sa-stats.pl from the tools dir in awhile, but since
upgrading to 3.0.2, I thought I'd look at it again. Anyone have an idea
why it returns all zeros? Does it even work with v3? And yes, I'm
calling SA with spamc/spamd.
FP
--
Be big. Be meaty. Be Frank.
signature.asc
De
At 04:26 PM 10/29/2004, John Chase wrote:
This is my fist time posting to the list so I hope that my message is
targeted to the appropriate audience. I'm running SA 3.0 with Qmail Scanner.
I hope to delete all detected spam. However, some Spam is slipping by. The
subject is renamed, but the messa
Hi,
This is my fist time posting to the list so I hope that my message is
targeted to the appropriate audience. I'm running SA 3.0 with Qmail Scanner.
I hope to delete all detected spam. However, some Spam is slipping by. The
subject is renamed, but the message is not deleted.
In the below examp
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 03:49:13PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Originally I responded to some emails from the Devs while 3.0 whas still in
> development, and they agreed to have an option to allow you to force SA to
> use plain-text bayes DBs, but apparently that option slowed things down too
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 03:36:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In short, when I run sa-learn --dump, I see a slew of binary tokens. I've
> isolated the problem by creating a test directory, pointing sa-dump to it via
> --dbpath, and creating a new db. Even after loading only a single s
At 03:36 PM 10/29/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've searches low and high for answers to this problem, but I believe they
answers out there don't have regular predictable keywords to find them.
SA 3.0.1
Redhat FC2
Yes, that's what it's supposed to do in SA 3.x.
SA 3.0.x does not store bayes toke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 01:26 PM 10/29/2004, Mark Christoph wrote:
> >As a result, I lowered the scores for HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC and
> >HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR.
> >I also forced bayes to relearn the email as ham, etc. The other
> >problem is that the send
I've searches low and high for answers to this problem, but I believe they
answers out there don't have regular predictable keywords to find them.
SA 3.0.1
Redhat FC2
In short, when I run sa-learn --dump, I see a slew of binary tokens. I've
isolated the problem by creating a test directory, poi
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:31:59PM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> debug: Conf::SQL: executing SQL: SELECT preference, value FROM userpref
> WHERE username = 'jason-at-lixfeld.ca' OR username = '$GLOBAL' OR
> username = CONCAT('%','lixfeld.ca') ORDER BY username ASC
Run this query in the command
On 29-Oct-04, at 11:13 AM, Michael Parker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 05:04:03AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
-Spamd's logfile below shows the from plixfeld-at-andromedas.com to
jason-at-lixfeld.ca. The system things the username is "nobody".
I've
tried with both the -q and -Q spamd switches
At 01:26 PM 10/29/2004, Mark Christoph wrote:
As a result, I lowered the scores for HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC and
HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR.
I also forced bayes to relearn the email as ham, etc. The other
problem is that the sender of the message informed me that it is not a
dynamically assigned address. It is
-Original Message-
From: Mark Christoph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 October 2004 18:26
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: false positives from HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC and HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rules
We are running SA 3.0.1 site wide at my company and I had some false
positives due
Hi!
Here are the scores:
Content analysis details: (-98.8 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
0.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC)
0.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR
We are running SA 3.0.1 site wide at my company and I had some false
positives due to HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC and HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR. They are
probably useful rules, but I am surprised that their default scores
are so high. Here are the headers of the message and the scores it
got:
Received: from a80-
Thank you. Problem solved!
On 29 Oct 2004 at 12:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 12:00 PM 10/29/2004, Moussa Fall wrote:
> >I am using RH9. I removed the install version and downloaded the latest
> >tarball SpamAssassin
> >3.0.1. Unfortunately I have a problem while installing. While running
> >'m
At 12:00 PM 10/29/2004, Moussa Fall wrote:
I am using RH9. I removed the install version and downloaded the latest
tarball SpamAssassin
3.0.1. Unfortunately I have a problem while installing. While running
'make' got the following
error:
Makefile:95: *** missing separator. Stop.
Checked the FAQ,
I am using RH9. I removed the install version and downloaded the latest tarball
SpamAssassin
3.0.1. Unfortunately I have a problem while installing. While running 'make'
got the following
error:
Makefile:95: *** missing separator. Stop.
Checked the FAQ, searched lists, could not find answer
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 05:04:03AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> -Spamd's logfile below shows the from plixfeld-at-andromedas.com to
> jason-at-lixfeld.ca. The system things the username is "nobody". I've
> tried with both the -q and -Q spamd switches to no avail.
>
> -anyone know what's goi
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +0400, Alexandr Orlov wrote:
> Received: from lala.ru ([1.1.1.1] verified)
> by lalala.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5)
> with SMTP id 2916390; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:26:04 +0400
> X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
> What is the problem and what I can do to remov
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 11:32:39AM +0100, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
> Oct 29 10:59:14 linux amavis[28527]: (28527-01) SA TIMED OUT, backtrace:
> at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/M
> essage.pm line 116\n\teval {...} called at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message.
> I've suddenly started getting problems with SpamAssassin timing out. I
> upgraded to Mail::SpamAssassin 3.0.1 first with no luck.
> Initially the timeouts were in the bayes store so I turned
> bayes_auto_expire off and now the timeout has moved to Message.pm.
>
> Oct 29 10:59:14 linux amavis[2852
> Greetings,
>
> I'm trying to investigate whether SpamAssassin can be used in a non-spam
> application that we're trying to build. I've read lots of stuff on the
> website but I'm still not sure. I thought I would ask you, the experts.
>
> The application needs to determine whether a certain domai
I do not doubt it. That's why I'm really trying on this one. I'm moving this
system off Solaris to Linux soon, so I don't really need to solve this
issue, but I'm curious to say the least.
As someone else pointed out, I tried loading URIDNSBL.pm as a plugin by
putting a loadplugin line in my l
Michele
hence for those using RDJ to update, you edit the version info, which
*should* get emailed to a real person with the "I've upgrade these
rules" message
At least you've then informed as many people as possible the rule is
going off-line..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrato
Kevin
I use MailScanner rather than Amavi-new, but...
have you tried sa-learn --force-expire to clear out the bayes info..
any RBL's in there??? have you tried removing them (setting score to zero).
what does spamassassin --lint give yo?
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logi
Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Chris
>
> may I suggest you change BE at the top (revision section), so
> it gives notice of BE's imminent death on 1 Dec (for example).
>
> Then repeat this every week so people might actually read the
> update email from RDJ and do something about it!
>
> On 1 Dec remo
I've suddenly started getting problems with SpamAssassin timing out. I
upgraded to Mail::SpamAssassin 3.0.1 first with no luck.
Initially the timeouts were in the bayes store so I turned
bayes_auto_expire off and now the timeout has moved to Message.pm.
Oct 29 10:59:14 linux amavis[28527]: (28
Hello All!
I have a linux box with CommunigatePro + spamassasin.
All work fine, but sometimes I have failed message, exmaple:
==
Received: from lala.ru ([1.1.1.1] verified)
by lalala.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5)
with SMTP id 2916390; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:26
Platform: FreeBSD 5.2.1-p9
Version: 3.0.1 (via FreeBSD Ports)
Invokation: /usr/local/bin/spamd -d -q -x -r /var/run/spamd.pid (perl)
(via sa-exim (via FreeBSD Ports)) (exim 4.43 (via FreeBSD Ports))
(note: @ replaced with -at- for email addresses for purposes of
sanitizing this message)
I'
Chris
may I suggest you change BE at the top (revision section), so it gives
notice of BE's imminent death on 1 Dec (for example).
Then repeat this every week so people might actually read the update
email from RDJ and do something about it!
On 1 Dec remove all the entries and merely have the c
Chris Santerre wrote:
> Number of hits for the bigevil file in Oct: 109328
>
> Um.I'm not updating it anymore! Haven't in quite a while.
>
> Tell your RDJ script to stop asking for updates :)
You should probably put some innocuous error in that file that will
cause anyone running --lint t
Thanks for the help and info. I'll tell my friend why his 3.0 install
is letting more spam through and he has autolearn turned on, so his
should get better.
As for me, I'll upgrade to at least version 2.64. I use lots of the
custom rules - antidrug.cf, etc. If I upgrade SA to 3.0, can I still
First, you are confusing several things here about how SA works. If you
understand this better you will have a better chance of deciding if SA could do
what you want it to do.
SA works two ways (well, a lot more, but two of importance here):
1) by hard-coded rules that check for known kinds of
Ayup modulo a typu I do. Don't forget I am an old troglodyte
paleocomputer type who is quite contented with a few remote ssh
logins to 60 line command line sessions. That's MUCH lighter weight
than playing with X. I do have some sanity left, ya know. Here's a
piece of top at the moment - yeah 256m
Greetings,
I'm trying to investigate whether SpamAssassin can be used in a non-spam
application that we're trying to build. I've read lots of stuff on the
website but I'm still not sure. I thought I would ask you, the experts.
The application needs to determine whether a certain domain name is
"s
Loren Wilton wrote:
That rule sounds suspeciously like one I wrote a long time ago, and
once posted here. If it is, then the problem is probably the
double-quoting in the display name of the To line, or the fact that
the display name happens to match the email address rather than
something like "J
That rule sounds suspeciously like one I wrote a long time ago, and once posted
here. If it is, then the problem is probably the double-quoting in the display
name of the To line, or the fact that the display name happens to match the
email address rather than something like "Jonathan Nichols".
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:19:13 -0700, "Bart Schaefer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:21:59 -0700, Jeff Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63?
>
> Version 3 stops different spam than 2.63, in my experience so far.
> E.g.
53 matches
Mail list logo
