It is safe to use SA 2.x SpamC with SA 3.x SpamD.
Jason J Ellingson
Technical Consultant
615.301.1682 : nashville
612.605.1132 : minneapolis
www.ellingson.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[
Hi!
Perhaps someone can help here. I have recently added the SURBL
functionality to my SpamAssassin installation, and things seem to work
wonderfully. However, we do on a fairly regular basis seem to be the
"first" to get hit with the spam. What I mean is that spamassassin
will catch it only
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:33:23PM -0800, Shaun wrote:
> Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.4/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf/Parser.pm line 730.
This means the rule has no type. Likely it's a bad configuration. (I'd like
to know what it is though since I didn'
Since the cpanel upgrade to spamd 3.0.x i have been having hell with this
one machine, i have over 500 other machines working just fine but this one
is just stuborn. The machine is a older one, Redhat 8.0, Perl was recently
upgraded to 5.8.4 in hopes of solving the problem. Below is a debug dump
Hi all,
I don't know what I did, but this is what's happening to me
1. SpamAssassin noi longer Prepend Subject Line even though I told it
to in local.cf
2. Spam score mismatch in headers.
3. Spam gets delivered as it is but Spamassassin report was send as an
attachment instead of the other way aro
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:20:35 -0500, Michael Barnes wrote
> I was able to change the default CFLAGS by putting the CCFLAGS and
> the CFLAGS values in my environment before running "perl Makefile.PL".
>
> I would guess that this could be considered a bug, because its not
> too uncommon for default
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 04:46:47PM -0500, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> Anyone tried it? I hope I do not have to go and rebuild all my toasters.
> It looks as though it should be fine, we use no Bayes, no AWL.
I haven't tried it, but the spamd protocol wasn't changed between v2 and v3,
so the old spamc
Hi All,
Did anything change in the SA lists since Sunday?
Have had SA 3.0 running happily here since it came out (win32/cygwin)
- from Sunday I started seeing mail from the list (and annoyingly some
419ers too) with no SA headers at all - a check of the logs for spamd
shows it never even saw the
2.64 spamc on toasters with 3.0.1 spamd running on NFS server. Currently
we are all 2.64, but I am planning to upgrade the NFS box tonight to 3.0.1
Anyone tried it? I hope I do not have to go and rebuild all my toasters.
It looks as though it should be fine, we use no Bayes, no AWL.
Just tought
Hi,
Perhaps someone can help here. I have recently added the SURBL
functionality to my SpamAssassin installation, and things seem to work
wonderfully. However, we do on a fairly regular basis seem to be the
"first" to get hit with the spam. What I mean is that spamassassin
will catch it only
At 03:39 PM 11/2/2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
Looking at the whois records for Deny.org, and some usenet postings, James
works for isdn.net, and ISP in TN, USA.
Self clarification, it appears James worked for isdn.net at the time. I
have no idea if James still works there, or to what degree he repre
At 03:08 PM 11/2/2004, jdow wrote:
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 01:24 PM 11/2/2004 +, Moussa Fall wrote:
> >Thank you, Martin and Duncan!
> >Sorry I did not mention this information. I am using RH9 with Postfix.
> >Maybe I can use Mailscanner.
>
> Regardless of objections to us
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 01:24 PM 11/2/2004 +, Moussa Fall wrote:
> >Thank you, Martin and Duncan!
> >Sorry I did not mention this information. I am using RH9 with Postfix.
> >Maybe I can use Mailscanner.
>
> Regardless of objections to using MailScanner with postfix (not
After some more rumbling around today, I've come across this;
http://www.stearns.org/doc/spamassassin-setup.current.html
And in interesting section on Shared whitelist and bayes databases and
autoreporting addresses, which seems to cover most of what I want to do.
To this end, I've setup a spam m
> |-Original Message-
> |From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |Sent: 02 November 2004 17:43
> |To: marti
> |Cc: Spamassassin
> |Subject: RE: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
> |
> |This has nothing to do with .cf files. It is purely a problem
> |with running the wrong version of
|-Original Message-
|From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 02 November 2004 17:43
|To: marti
|Cc: Spamassassin
|Subject: RE: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
|
|This has nothing to do with .cf files. It is purely a problem
|with running the wrong version of sa.
|
|Do this:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:46:55AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
>George Georgalis writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>> >On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
>> >> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
>> >> >coming thru a trus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
George Georgalis writes:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
> >On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
> >> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
> >> >coming thru a trusted path?
> >>
> >
>> |-Original Message-
>> |From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> |Sent: 02 November 2004 16:57
>> |To: marti
>> |Cc: Spamassassin
>> |Subject: RE: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
>> |
>> |
>> |When I got this error, it meant I had 2 copies of spamassassin
>> |executable installe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexandr Orlov writes:
> I love spamassasin, but I hate this:
>
> X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
>
> I look to the log file, to the debug, soo at all, but I can`t find
> anything?
> What can give this error?
never heard of it -- it's not Spa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Khalid Waheed writes:
> SpamAssassin has all sorts of per-user capabilities, including whitelists,
> rule weights, and Bayesian filtering.
> But all of this stuff is totally useless in some mail servers (e.g.
> SunOne messaging server), for the simpl
> |-Original Message-
> |From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |Sent: 02 November 2004 16:57
> |To: marti
> |Cc: Spamassassin
> |Subject: RE: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
> |
> |
> |When I got this error, it meant I had 2 copies of spamassassin
> |executable installed on my sy
|-Original Message-
|From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 02 November 2004 16:57
|To: marti
|Cc: Spamassassin
|Subject: RE: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
|
|
|When I got this error, it meant I had 2 copies of spamassassin
|executable installed on my system with one set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sean Doherty writes:
> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 19:28, Justin Mason wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Jim Maul writes:
> > > This is exactly how i have my system setup. I have a 192.168 IP
> > > assigned to my s
From the looks of it, it's generated by this tool:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22X-Spam-Status:+SpamAssassin+Failed%22+Communigate&hl=en&lr=&selm=list-25424187%40mail.stalker.com&rnum=1
It inserts an X-Spam-Status header, and expects SpamAssassin to over-write
it. If for some reason SA does
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:42:34AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
...
> >X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
...
> >What can give this error?
ON 29th of October "Alexandr Orlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
also wrote a Question to the list, containig the
same Header.
He said "I have a linux box with Communig
>
> |-Original Message-
> |From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |Sent: 02 November 2004 15:40
> |To: marti
> |Cc: Spamassassin
> |Subject: Re: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
> |
> |> After upgrading from 3.0.0 to the latest version I get the following
> |> error:-
> |>
> |> ERR
|
|Keith is right; the script is looking for the new scripts in
|the old place.
|Mine were in /usr/local/bin and /usr/bin.
|Just move or copy the new scripts in the directory the old ones are in.
|
|
I would if it had installed them in a different place but its not, I forgot
to put the rules path
-Original Message-
From: marti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 11:46 AM
To: Spamassassin
Subject: RE: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
|-Original Message-
|From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 02 November 2004 15:40
|To: marti
|Cc: S
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 03:45:08PM +0300, Alexandr Orlov wrote:
> I love spamassasin, but I hate this:
>
> X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
>
> I look to the log file, to the debug, soo at all, but I can`t find
> anything?
> What can give this error?
Nothing from SpamAssassin writes that he
Keith Hackworth wrote:
As for 1 and 3, I don't know, but 2, I did myself.
Actually, the biggest problem you'll run into is that when you forward the
message, it tinkers with the headers of the message. I found a solution
to this that doesn't require special scripts to strip the 'false' headers.
F
|-Original Message-
|From: Keith Hackworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 02 November 2004 15:40
|To: marti
|Cc: Spamassassin
|Subject: Re: Error after upgrading to 3.0.1
|
|> After upgrading from 3.0.0 to the latest version I get the following
|> error:-
|>
|> ERROR! spamassassin scr
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 03:40:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:16, George Georgalis wrote:
>
>> >> The setup I use routes mail at the tcp level, it's basically impossible
>> >> for a message to reach spam assassin if it's from a trusted network.
>
>> >So why not set trusted
> Hi,
>
> Just upgraded to 3.0.1 running under qmail on OpenBSD and am happy to
> report no problems. However, whilst I was doing this, I had a few
> ideas. I've had a shufty through the archives for these but I didn't
> find an appropriate answer. I have 3 questions:
>
> 1. I would like to setu
I'm calling SA via cgpav. Seems that cgpav does its own
interpretation of the results from spamd. The report is no
longer attached, for one.
Is there anyone out there who has fiddled with the cgpav
source? I'd like to get back to the way that things were
under spamass-milter.
Thanks!
Scott
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:16, George Georgalis wrote:
> >> The setup I use routes mail at the tcp level, it's basically impossible
> >> for a message to reach spam assassin if it's from a trusted network.
> >So why not set trusted_networks to 127.0.0.1. That way you can
> >be certain that the rule
> After upgrading from 3.0.0 to the latest version I get the following
> error:-
>
> ERROR! spamassassin script is v3.00, but using modules v3.01!
>
> Any idea what scrip its refering to, spamassassin --lint -D worked just
> fine, but cant fire up spamd.
>
> Martin
>
>
I had the same prob
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:02PM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
>> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
>> >coming thru a trusted path?
>>
>> It really doesn't matter to me what the score is, I just want to disable
>> the tes
Hi,
Just upgraded to 3.0.1 running under qmail on OpenBSD and am happy to
report no problems. However, whilst I was doing this, I had a few
ideas. I've had a shufty through the archives for these but I didn't
find an appropriate answer. I have 3 questions:
1. I would like to setup a sitewide
Hello Simon,
Monday, November 1, 2004, 6:04:53 PM, you wrote:
SB> One of the things mentioned in the article is that Spam ...
SB> is *ALSO* sent deliberately to addresses where it will
SB> bounce, with the actual intended recipient as the Return address
SB> ...\
SB> This is a technique I've been
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 18:54, Moussa Fall wrote:
> Thank you, Martin and Duncan!
> Sorry I did not mention this information. I am using RH9 with Postfix.
> Maybe I can use Mailscanner.
if you use MailScanner then you can specify in MailScanner configuration
to Discard the Spam Mails or simply store
At 01:24 PM 11/2/2004 +, Moussa Fall wrote:
Thank you, Martin and Duncan!
Sorry I did not mention this information. I am using RH9 with Postfix.
Maybe I can use Mailscanner.
Regardless of objections to using MailScanner with postfix (not supported
by the postfix guys, but does seem to work for
Duncan Hill wrote:
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 13:24, Moussa Fall might have typed:
Thank you, Martin and Duncan!
Sorry I did not mention this information. I am using RH9 with Postfix.
Maybe I can use Mailscanner.
The folks on the postfix list will thwack you if you use mailscanner, as it
apparen
At 03:45 PM 11/2/2004 +0300, Alexandr Orlov wrote:
I love spamassasin, but I hate this:
X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
I look to the log file, to the debug, soo at all, but I can`t find anything?
What can give this error?
Don't know...AFAIK spamassassin itself will never generate this... Are
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 13:24, Moussa Fall might have typed:
> Thank you, Martin and Duncan!
> Sorry I did not mention this information. I am using RH9 with Postfix.
> Maybe I can use Mailscanner.
The folks on the postfix list will thwack you if you use mailscanner, as it
apparently uses unsu
Thank you, Martin and Duncan!
Sorry I did not mention this information. I am using RH9 with Postfix.
Maybe I can use Mailscanner.
On 2 Nov 2004 at 12:53, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Moussa Fall wrote:
> > Question from a newbie: can anyone point me to a location where I can find
> > out to make
>
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote:
> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
> >coming thru a trusted path?
>
> It really doesn't matter to me what the score is, I just want to disable
> the test.
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3406
>
> My /
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:24:57AM +, Sean Doherty wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 20:37, George Georgalis wrote:
>
>> skip_rbl_checks 1
>> use_bayes 0
>>
>> noautolearn 1
>> use_auto_whitelist 0
>> score AWL 0.001
>>
>> trusted_networks 192.168.
>> score ALL_TRUSTED 0.001
>
>Do you mean -0.001
I love spamassasin, but I hate this:
X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
I look to the log file, to the debug, soo at all, but I can`t find
anything?
What can give this error?
--
Orlov Alex,
Head of IT,
IPB Russia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work phone (10am-7pm): +7-095-9757228
GSM phone (24h): +7-916-614
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 12:33, Moussa Fall might have typed:
> Question from a newbie: can anyone point me to a location where I can find
> out to make spamassassin automatically reject spam? I noticed that all
> tagged spam are really spams and I do not want users to receive mail with
> scores
Question from a newbie: can anyone point me to a location where I can find out
to make
spamassassin automatically reject spam? I noticed that all tagged spam are
really spams and
I do not want users to receive mail with scores, etc.
Thank you.
From: "Khalid Waheed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> SpamAssassin has all sorts of per-user capabilities, including whitelists,
rule weights, and Bayesian filtering.
> But all of this stuff is totally useless in some mail servers (e.g. SunOne
messaging server), for the simple reason that being able to pro
SpamAssassin has all sorts of per-user capabilities, including whitelists, rule
weights, and Bayesian filtering.
But all of this stuff is totally useless in some mail servers (e.g. SunOne
messaging server), for the simple reason that being able to process mail for
multiple users simultaneously
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 20:37, George Georgalis wrote:
> skip_rbl_checks 1
> use_bayes 0
>
> noautolearn 1
> use_auto_whitelist 0
> score AWL 0.001
>
> trusted_networks 192.168.
> score ALL_TRUSTED 0.001
Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail
coming thru a trusted path?
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 19:28, Justin Mason wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Jim Maul writes:
> > This is exactly how i have my system setup. I have a 192.168 IP
> > assigned to my server. It has no public IP assigned to it. However, i
> > have a router/firewall i
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 18:24, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 01:07 PM 11/1/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
> > > so the *next* step must be the external MX.
> >
> >My 10.x server is inside a firewall which NATs port 25 so this
> >conclusion is not correct. I imagine that my setup isn't all
> >that different fro
Hi,
Sincere apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere but I
have not been able to find a succinct solution.
Currently I'm using SA in a small office. It is an earlier version
running on Windows and using pop3proxy mcd.perlmonk.org/pop3proxy/ the
set-up seems unstable, as emails ar
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 11:04:39PM -0600, Tim Litwiller wrote:
> I really have no idea as it wasn't something I installed seperately ...
> I just checked and it is 1.997
1.997 works fine (it's what I have installed on my box), are you sure
you don't have an old version hanging out somewhere?
Just
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 05:17:34PM -0600, Tim Litwiller wrote:
Nov 1 17:38:42 mailhost spamd[15700]: Use of uninitialized value in
numeric lt (<) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SPF.pm line 204,
line 52.
Nov 1 17:38:42 mailhost spamd[15700]: U
Hi Everyone,
I think I figured out why SA was running bayes syncs every
time it scored a message. Since my databases are somewhat
large: 5MB bayes_journal, 84MB bayes_seen and 11MB bayes_toks;
I had to include the following in local.cf:
bayes_journal_max_size 0 (prevents opportunistic syncs)
bayes_
> http://authortravis.tripod.com/
> http://www.geocities.com/author_travis/
>
> very interesting!
>
> --j.
>
One of the things mentioned in the article is that Spam Sent using
Send-Safe/Sobig as well as being delivered directly (using fake return
addresses etc) is *ALSO* sent deliberately to a
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 05:17:34PM -0600, Tim Litwiller wrote:
> Nov 1 17:38:42 mailhost spamd[15700]: Use of uninitialized value in
> numeric lt (<) at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SPF.pm line 204,
> line 52.
> Nov 1 17:38:42 mailhost spamd[15700]: Use of uniniti
62 matches
Mail list logo
