At 05:06 PM 11/16/2004, Steven W. Orr wrote:
The docs are not very clear on whether the format uses regex a la perl or
whether it's simple globbing.
It's globbing, only, and the manpages point out it's a security thing. You
can't allow untusted users to create perl regexes for spamd systems. (hen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yeah, if you're using gotmail, you need to disable that rule.
It'll never FP *except* on gotmail mail.
- --j.
Guyang Mao writes:
> To start with, I am using spamassassin as a part of mimedefang, with network
> tests enabled.
>
> And here's my situa
The docs are not very clear on whether the format uses regex a la perl or
whether it's simple globbing.
I tried to reject all incoming email that is addressed to a number via
blacklist_to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then when I tried to test it by sending something from the outside to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] it
|-Original Message-
|From: ChupaCabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 16 November 2004 17:32
|To: SpamAssassin list
|Subject: Re: kinda OT procmailrc
|
||That seems to have solved some of my difficulty but I am still
|getting this is my procmaillog.
|
|
|###
| From [EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, ChupaCabra wrote:
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 16 11:26:35 2004
> Subject: [SPAM] Christmas gift idea - Rolex Watch
> Folder:
> /home/correspondance/Maildir/new/1100625995.28492_1.mail.cho 5228
> procmail: [28493] Tue Nov 16 11:26:37 2004
> procmail: No match on
Jason von Nieda wrote:
> Hi all. I'm using SA with rewrite_header Subject globally but
> I need to disable it for one user. I used to use rewrite_subject 1 globally
> and
> rewrite_subject 0 in user_prefs for this user but with 3.0 these are
> deprecated and removed. Can someone give me a hint of
To start with, I am using spamassassin as a part of mimedefang, with network
tests enabled.
And here's my situation:
I have a Hotmail account, through which I'm subscribed to various Microsoft
mailing lists such as security updates, MSDN information, MCP lists, etc.
Microsoft's bulk mailer adds a
Well, I'm not sure exactly what fixed my problem but it is working fine
now. I'll just need to pay attention and see if there is any other tuning
that needs to be done. I increased the number of children to 35, changed
the max-conn-per-child to 1, removed the lock for spamassassin and added
DRO
Hi all. I'm using SA with rewrite_header Subject globally but I need to
disable it for one user. I used to use rewrite_subject 1 globally and
rewrite_subject 0 in user_prefs for this user but with 3.0 these are
deprecated and removed. Can someone give me a hint of how to do this now?
I've tried
A small dialogue with the creator of the script "trim_whitelist":
Kris Deugau wrote:
>> Klaus Pforte wrote:
>>
>
The script make a backup of the DB-File (I changed the location in the
script), o.k.
But after this comes everytime "Cannot tie to old db."
I changed the ownership and ri
On Nov 15 at 22:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke:
> >> This were perfect if it were not unsafe.
> >> Doesn't ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs require allow_user_rules=1 ?
> >> It is not recommended. Is there a way to make allow_user_rules safe?
> >>
> >> -Hanspeter
> >>
> Hi,
>
> they will be safe if
>
Bob Proulx wrote:
ChupaCabra wrote:
Is it not kosher to have both a /etc/procmailrc and a $USER/.procmailrc
That is okay. But I think your problem is that you have set both
DEFAULT and MAILDIR to the same location.
here is my /etc/procmailrc
VERBOSE=yes
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
DEFAULT=$
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Martin wrote:
> I'm using SA 2.6x with SURBL and alot of SARE rules. Recently alot of stock
> spams are getting through.
When I replaced the _mydomain_ with our local domain in that message, it
scores 7.2 points here, just from DNSBL lists, and 2.1 for bayes.
After training
Michael Parker wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:14:34AM -0800, Vadim wrote:
From time to time I am getting these error messages:
Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: server hit by SIGCHLD
Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: handled cleanup of child pid 10774
Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: server successfully sp
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:14:34AM -0800, Vadim wrote:
> >From time to time I am getting these error messages:
>
> Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: server hit by SIGCHLD
> Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: handled cleanup of child pid 10774
> Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: server successfully spawned child p
From time to time I am getting these error messages:
Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: server hit by SIGCHLD
Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: handled cleanup of child pid 10774
Nov 15 22:30:40 spamd[4749]: server successfully spawned child process, pid
21719
Is there a problem with my configuration? I am
Firstly: Hi, First posting to the list.
Secondly:
> It seems to work well but isn't based on much more than a whim and a
little observation. I get very few ham hits on _my_ mail with it, but >
I mainly get pretty clean looking ham.
This seems like a sensible approach in general. However, it s
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:35:15AM -0400, Elias Arends wrote:
>
> I have the above setup working with no problems. Incoming mail is being
> scanned and tagged properly and delivered to the mailboxes. Now I want to
> implement Per User Preferences using a MySQL database. I already have the
> databa
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Keith Hackworth uttered the following:
>> make[1]: Entering directory `/export/new_stuff/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.1'
>> gcc -g -O2 spamc/spamc.c spamc/libspamc.c spamc/utils.c \
>> -o spamc/spamc -ldl -lnsl -lsocket
>> Undefined first referenced
>>
ChupaCabra wrote:
> Is it not kosher to have both a /etc/procmailrc and a $USER/.procmailrc
That is okay. But I think your problem is that you have set both
DEFAULT and MAILDIR to the same location.
> here is my /etc/procmailrc
>
> VERBOSE=yes
> MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
> DEFAULT=$HOME/Maildir/
> I did once completely automate this using a script that fired
> everything in my spam folder to spamcop, grepped 'sc?id' out of all
> the spamcop replies, opened lynx with a command script which searched
> for "Send Spam Report" and hit the link.
This would be better done with LWP, I think; scri
Is it not kosher to have both a /etc/procmailrc and a $USER/.procmailrc
here is my /etc/procmailrc
VERBOSE=yes
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
DEFAULT=$HOME/Maildir/
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmaillog
DROPPRIVS=yes
COMSAT=no
:0fw
* < 256000
| spamc
# All mail tagged as spam (eg. with a score higher than the
Hi,
We seem to be getting FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD firing on genuine hotmail
messages. Sample below. The rule seems to be firing as there's no
Received headers at all, apart from the one written by our own server
"palin".
This is SpamAssassin version 3.0.1.
Now, we're quite used to seeing regular "
Platform: Solaris 8
MTA: Postfix 2.1.5
Software: SpamAssassin 2.64
SQL: MySQL 4.0.21
I have the above setup working with no problems. Incoming mail is being
scanned and tagged properly and delivered to the mailboxes. Now I want to
implement Per User Preferences using a MySQL database. I already ha
I just got a spam that hit 2 SURBL domains. Advert for "Send your kids an
email from santa!" How nice of spammers to not only tkae your $10, but
harvest your children's email account and name as well. I'll be drafting up
a warning to my users shortly. Others may want to do the same. Spread the
love
Bill
must be on droogs ...:-) or old age is kicking in!
evilnumbers is still live I'll get mi coat..!
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Bowie Bailey wrote:
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also I 'think' SA 3.01 contains weeds.
> Well I seem to have a problem getting Spamassassin 3.0.1 to compile.
> I am running Solaris 2.5.1 with Perl 5.8.5 and gcc 3.3.2. I have been
> able to install all the required perl modules. Now I want to finally
> install Spamassassin and I get this error:
>
> [...]
>
> gcc -g -O2 spamc/spamc.
At 08:37 AM 11/16/2004 -0600, Paul Crittenden wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.0.1 on a Compaq Alpha running Tru64-Unix,
sendmail 8.12.10. are there any guidelines to figuring out how many
children you need when running spamc/spamd. I know that having to many is
as bad as having to few. I have
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Also I 'think' SA 3.01 contains weeds.cf and chickenpox.cf as
> standard rulesets now (check in /etc/mail/spamassassin).
As far as I have been able to determine, SA 3.01 contains
chickenpox, but not weeds. So the weeds ruleset would still be
u
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.0.1 on a Compaq Alpha running Tru64-Unix,
sendmail 8.12.10. are there any guidelines to figuring out how many
children you need when running spamc/spamd. I know that having to many is
as bad as having to few. I have tried 10, 25 and 30. Thing seem to be going
better a
At 09:55 AM 11/16/2004 +0100, Martin wrote:
Hi,
I'm using SA 2.6x with SURBL and alot of SARE rules. Recently alot of
stock spams are getting through.
I can't find any rule to catch this spam. Can anyone please give me a hint
what rules to use?
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.9 required=5.0 tests=HT
Hi,
its maybe not the right group but maybe you guys have a idea anyway.
Given is a Debian Box (Woody Kernel 2426) running Sendmail (9.12.10.4)
amavis-new (20030616p3-1) and spamassassin (2.63-1).
Within the last time i notice that the swap file space is not getting
released anymore, the space get
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 04:07 +, James Marquez wrote:
> Well I seem to have a problem getting Spamassassin 3.0.1 to compile. I am
> running Solaris 2.5.1 with Perl 5.8.5 and gcc 3.3.2. I have been able to
> install all the required perl modules. Now I want to finally install
> Spamassassin and
> Well I seem to have a problem getting Spamassassin 3.0.1 to compile. I am
> running Solaris 2.5.1 with Perl 5.8.5 and gcc 3.3.2. I have been able to
> install all the required perl modules. Now I want to finally install
> Spamassassin and I get this error:
> " " " " " " " "
> checking for in_addr
Thanks, that's it. It's bookmarked now!
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Steve Dimoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:51 AM
To: Dan Barker; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Can't find the doc
This page?
For 2.6x
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_2
This page?
For 2.6x
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_2_6x.html
For 3.0x
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_0_x.html
-Original Message-
From: Dan Barker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:48 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Can't find th
I know I've seen this somewhere, but I've failed miserably finding it.
Where is the doc on what test does what?
I received an email that's ham, but scored very high (4.0). I want to write
up the reasons and suggest changes. I need to know what each test is really
testing.
For the Editorially inc
Duncan Hill wrote:
Content analysis details: (9.9 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
1.7 SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b Email passed through apparent spammer domain
0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY:
On mandag 15 november 2004, 14:34, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> GRANT SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE, INSERT ON TABLE bayes_token TO
> thomasbayes;
> GRANT UPDATE, SELECT, DELETE, INSERT ON TABLE bayes_vars TO
> thomasbayes; GRANT SELECT, INSERT, DELETE ON TABLE bayes_seen TO
> thomasbayes; GRANT SELECT, INSER
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 08:55, Martin might have typed:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using SA 2.6x with SURBL and alot of SARE rules. Recently alot of
> stock spams are getting through.
Content analysis details: (9.9 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
Tom McClure wrote:
Without ditching the current scoring altogether in favor of a multiplicative
model (a la bayes), what if there were a post-analysis scoring step that just
took into account the total number of positive rules (or rule families, if
there is such a division)? Instead of looking
Donald
I'd also check which RBL's you are using. I found quite a few problems
when I had more than 2 RBL'S being checked - even with an increased SA
timeout setting in MailScanner.
Also I 'think' SA 3.01 contains weeds.cf and chickenpox.cf as standard
rulesets now (check in /etc/mail/spamassass
Hi,
I'm using SA 2.6x with SURBL and alot of SARE rules. Recently alot of
stock spams are getting through.
I can't find any rule to catch this spam. Can anyone please give me a
hint what rules to use?
Spam is attached.
Thanks in advance
/ Martin
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (192.168.2.80 [1
One other thing to point out. We ran all of the testing under the user
nobody and in production we use the user filter.
So, when we switched over to pre-prod our bayes was blank because there
were no entries for the user filter on the backend server. The fix was
to modify the call to spamc to i
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:52:55PM -0500, Rich West wrote:
> >
> >Now, on startup, it does mention that it was successful in getting a
> >DB connection, but, aside from that, I have not seen any other
> >activity relating to the database... Is there something that I have
> >missed here?
> >
> >
Here is a updated copy with Getopt::Long support.. Also fixed 'time'
based calculations.
http://www.engelken.net/download/sa-stats.txt
# perl sa-stats.txt --help
usage: sa-stats.txt [-l ] [-f ] [-n ] [-w]
--logdir|-lDirectory containing spamd logs
--filename|-f File
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 03:07, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Has anyone seen an ebuild for 3.x yet? Or, if there's anyone using
> Gentoo around here, have you installed 3.x successfully yet? :)
It's already in Portage, just not stable yet:
http://packages.gentoo.org/packages/?categ
Never mind..
I think I just found it..
The spamd server will not pay attention to SQL preferences by default,
even with user_scores_dsn set in the config files. You must startup
spamd with the proper options (ie -q or -Q, see perldoc spamd for more
information). If the user_scores_dsn option does
>
> I've tried using:
> * sa-stats 1.3 by Brad Rathbun (get zeroed stats when i run it)
> * sa-stats 0.5 by Dallas Engelken (this actually claims to
> work with SA v3, but i cant actually work out how to use it
> coz cant find docs and cant get a usage statement)
Well I know mine works with 3.0
Now, I know I had this working with SA 3.0 and below on a previous
incarnation of our mail server (Fedora Linux, SA 3.0.1, Sendmail 8.13.1,
procmail), but I have noticed that it no longer picks up the individual
user whitelist/blacklist information from the database as it should..
Our installat
Well I seem to have a problem getting Spamassassin 3.0.1 to compile. I am
running Solaris 2.5.1 with Perl 5.8.5 and gcc 3.3.2. I have been able to
install all the required perl modules. Now I want to finally install
Spamassassin and I get this error:
" " " " " " " "
checking for in_addr_t... no
Hello all,
I've gotten spamassassin running with spamc/spamd and logging
enabled and would like to analyse the logs to get some stats. I've searched
high and low and cant seem to find an analyser that will work with
spamassassin v3 log format (or maybe i'm not using the analysers right?).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Trulson writes:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Scott writes:
> >> I did realize I had big evil running.. Which by removing that it cut my
> >> memory usage to 42MB per
Hi everyone,
Has anyone seen an ebuild for 3.x yet? Or, if there's anyone using
Gentoo around here, have you installed 3.x successfully yet? :)
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The --max-children=1 flag to spamd has 'solved' the issue for me...
Sorry, that should be '--max-conn-per-child=1'.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2
yes, ok.. will try that..
mydefault experimental setting are these:
$sa_tag_level_deflt = -999; # add spam info headers if at, or above that
level
$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 1.0; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
#$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 5.0; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
$sa_k
yes, ok.. will try that..
mydefault experimental setting are these:
$sa_tag_level_deflt = -999; # add spam info headers if at, or above that level
$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 1.0; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
#$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 5.0; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
$sa_
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott writes:
I did realize I had big evil running.. Which by removing that it cut my
memory usage to 42MB per child.. What is the recommended replacement for
big evil? Is it already part of 3.0.1?
SURBL. Support
I'm getting a lot of spam slipping through SA 3.0.1 (on RH 8.0) and the
following message is getting logged about the same time:
Nov 15 14:24:28 linux spamd[17314]: error: Insecure dependency in eval
while running setuid at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Teel writes:
> Hello,
>
> I recently installed version 3.0.1 - here are my particulars:
>
> qmail-scanner 1.24
> FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE i386
> spamd invoked with: -H -c -d -m 3 -r
>
> My question is this: why do the child perl processes as displ
Hi, i've tried want to said but didn't work.. :(
from
@local_domains_acl = ( ".$mydomain" );
changed it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = ( "." );
restarted amavis-new and send a test spam,
still the same..
the sender recieves an mailer daemon notification, email gets
quarantined and notified. the intended re
Hi, i've tried want to said but didn't work.. :(
from
@local_domains_acl = ( ".$mydomain" );
changed it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = ( "." );
restarted amavis-new and send a test spam,
still the same..
the sender recieves an mailer daemon notification, email gets
quarantined and notified. the intended
Try "blacklist_to"
-Original Message-
From: Steven W. Orr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:33 PM
To: spamassassin users
Subject: Can someone explain why this got through?
I have the following entry in my local.cf (of 3.0.1)
blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I
Matt,
Thank you very much - I'll give these a try.
Donald
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 5:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spamassassin time outs
At 05:54 PM 11/15/2004, [EMAIL PRO
I have the following entry in my local.cf (of 3.0.1)
blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd love to deep6 these.
TIA.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:53:57 -0800 (PST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Your mail to Firewalls
This pre-recorded me
65 matches
Mail list logo
