On Wednesday, December 22, 2004, 8:38:04 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 12/22/2004, Ray Anderson wrote:
>>Greetings, I've been using spamassassin 2.55 for a while now on Mandrake 9.2.
>>
>>I have a list of URL's that are grouped to form a pretty big meta tag, and
>>this has worked great for
I have a couple new installs of SA3 (on RH9 from rpm) where I knew AWL did not
run and today I decided to see why.
The output from -D --lint is:
debug: lock: 31719 created
/var/spool/spamassassin/auto-whitelist.lock.mx1.domain.com.31719
debug: lock: 31719 trying to get lock on /var/spool/spamassa
At 09:30 AM 12/22/2004, shane mullins wrote:
I have a simple tagging question. I searched around, but didn't find a
solid answer. We have our mail set to be discarded at a score of 5.0,
and it works great. But, we would like to have spam above 3.0 tagged,
and looking at the message source, it is
At 01:58 PM 12/22/2004, SAtalk Mail User wrote:
I have a question, I have just recently upgraded my spamassassin from 2.6
to 3.0.2, and I notice that I get the following error;
ERROR
"SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping:
user_scores_sql_table___userpref"
the user_scores_sql_table c
Hello all,
I have a question, I have just recently upgraded my spamassassin from 2.6
to 3.0.2, and I notice that I get the following error;
ERROR
"SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: user_scores_sql_table___userpref"
I was wondering if any of you might be able to assist me with
I tried a CPAN installation of SA 3.0.2 and both those tests
(t/body_mod and t/utf8) failed all sub-tests. `make test' otherwise ran
OK. The failure, in both cases, started with "Modification of a
read-only value attempted at..." and then a series of "compilation
aborted" notes.
Am I OK forcin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004 18:14 schrieb Ryan Pavely:
> Well your email did bring me to an interesting observation.
> I am using SpamC for SA 3.0, and had upgraded from SA 2.63
>
> Notice the layout of my error message.. although ALL machines tha
At 12:14 PM 12/22/2004, Ryan Pavely wrote:
Well your email did bring me to an interesting observation.
I am using SpamC for SA 3.0, and had upgraded from SA 2.63
Notice the layout of my error message.. although ALL machines that run
spamc (/usr/local/bin/spamc) are 3.0 somehow
my error is displ
Well your email did bring me to an interesting observation.
I am using SpamC for SA 3.0, and had upgraded from SA 2.63
Notice the layout of my error message.. although ALL machines that run
spamc (/usr/local/bin/spamc) are 3.0 somehow
my error is displaying the SA 2.63 help message!
That's pretty
this ruleset works well for me:
http://www.violetdreams.com/sa/rolex.cf
maybe "ninjaz -at- webexpress.com" can be welcomed to the sare dojo? ;-)
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Arend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:56 AM
To: users@spamass
At 08:55 AM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
-H Randomize IP addresses for the looked-up
hostname.
My bad, sorry. Worth a try though. Sometimes you miss the obvious. :)
Chris Santerre wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004 12:42 schrieb Martin Hepworth:
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> what extra rules above the standard SA ones have you got? Any from
>>> www.rulesemporium.com ?
>>
> None of these have been tested yet. Use at your own risk. Do not
> operate while under heav
-H Randomize IP addresses for the looked-up
hostname.
Ryan Pavely
Director Research And Development
Net Access Corporation
Evan Platt wrote:
At 08:32 AM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
Since my upgrade to SA 3.0 I have a few more timeouts on occasion.
Therefore I
At 08:32 AM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
Since my upgrade to SA 3.0 I have a few more timeouts on occasion.
Therefore I decided to test adding -x to my .qmail spamc line.
eg. |/usr/local/bin/spamc -x -H -d spamd.nac.net -u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On occasion I get a message here and there that looks like this.
At 10:42 AM 12/22/2004, Ray Anderson wrote:
Greetings, I've been using spamassassin 2.55 for a while now on Mandrake 9.2.
I have a list of URL's that are grouped to form a pretty big meta tag, and
this has worked great for years now. Recently, one
dirtbag message has found a way through the defen
Since my upgrade to SA 3.0 I have a few more timeouts on occasion.
Therefore I decided to test adding -x to my .qmail spamc line.
eg. |/usr/local/bin/spamc -x -H -d spamd.nac.net -u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On occasion I get a message here and there that looks like this...
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Second attempt:
Greetings, I've been using spamassassin 2.55 for a while now on Mandrake 9.2.
I have a list of URL's that are grouped to form a pretty big meta tag, and this
has worked great for years now. Recently, one
dirtbag message has found a way through the defenses and I can't figure out
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 02:50:33PM +, Mário Gamito wrote:
>
> 2. new-inject is part of SA, isn't it ?
>
No, suggest you try the qmail lists.
Michael
pgpZsF7g4vaHp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
1. Does anyone knows how to use qmail new-inject instead of qmail inject ?
2. new-inject is part of SA, isn't it ?
Any help would be apreciated.
Warm Regards.
--
Mário Gamito
Administração de sistemas e desenvolvimento
Netual - Multimédia e Telecomunicações, Lda.
Rua João Afonso, Nº1
3800-198 A
Hello,
I just solved the problem by doing a sa-learn --backup, deleting
the bayes_ db files, and a sa-learn --restore. I guess somehow the
db got corrupted.
maarten
> Hello,
>
> (I repost this message because I have not been able to solve
> the problem, and it is becoming very noticable that m
Thanks Chris,
Those instructions are excellent. Thanks very much. We simply had
to discard spam above 5.0. We we were getting over 5000 spam emails a
day. The volume was simply too much to handle.
Shane
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'shane
>-Original Message-
>From: shane mullins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 9:30 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: spam tagging
>
>
>I have a simple tagging question. I searched around, but didn't find a
>solid answer. We have our mail set to be
I have a simple tagging question. I searched around, but didn't find a
solid answer. We have our mail set to be discarded at a score of 5.0,
and it works great. But, we would like to have spam above 3.0 tagged,
and looking at the message source, it is, along with the tests that
flagged it. Woul
>-Original Message-
>From: Thomas Arend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:56 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: {Spam?} spam with (rolex) watches gets trough
>
>
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 200
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004 12:42 schrieb Martin Hepworth:
> Thomas
>
> what extra rules above the standard SA ones have you got? Any from
> www.rulesemporium.com ?
I have only the standard rules from SA 3.0.2
>
> also have you got the URI rbl's t
On Wed, December 22, 2004 6:42 am, Martin Hepworth said:
> also have you got the URI rbl's turned on? This helps quite alot for this
> sort of spam.
Indeed.
That forwarded message ended up tagged as spam the URI checks are what
caught it... even the AWL wasn't enough to save it. :)
SpamAssassin
Thomas
what extra rules above the standard SA ones have you got? Any from
www.rulesemporium.com ?
also have you got the URI rbl's turned on? This helps quite alot for
this sort of spam.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Thomas Arend wrote:
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'm geting a lot of spam messages about rolex watches (see example below),
which were not scored as spam. Only the bayes test applies, which gives only
a score of 4.1
Thomas
Example Message:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[..]
X-Origin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004 10:44 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Hello, I just installed the latest 3.0.2 and when testing found that spamc
> doesnt do anything to the message but just process it through as text and
> does not format it. It:s the same
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello, I just installed the latest 3.0.2 and when testing found that spamc
> doesnt do anything to the message but just process it through as text and
> does not format it. It:s the same on the command line just passing a
> message to it. If I go into .procmailrc and re
Hello, I just installed the latest 3.0.2 and when testing found that spamc
doesnt do anything to the message but just process it through as text and
does not format it. It:s the same on the command line just passing a
message to it. If I go into .procmailrc and replace '| spamc' with
'|spamassassin
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It works for awhile. Then usually within a very few minutes it's back to
> > the old tricks. Restarting spamd seems to fix the spamc->spamd link. I
am
> > exploring generating a series of spam messages to see when it quits.
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It works for awhile. Then usually within a very few minutes it's back to
> the old tricks. Restarting spamd seems to fix the spamc->spamd link. I am
> exploring generating a series of spam messages to see when it quits. It
> MIGHT be the Greek characters. But why
[] vs () - thanks. (It affects ALL rules, though.)
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2004 December, 21, Tuesday 20:11
Subject: Re: SpamAssassin not giving correct scores
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 07:36 PM 12/21/2004 -0800, jdow wrote:
> >score JD_MY_NAME 0.1
> >
> > 1.0 JD_MY_NAME To my ids at Earthlink.
>
>
>
> >The rule names are not duplicated anywhere. I have NO idea how the 0.1
> >score turned into a 1. No matt
- Original Message -
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2004 December, 21, Tuesday 20:06
Subject: Re: SpamAssassin not giving correct scores
> From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I have a postfix->procmail->spamc->spamd configuration with postfix not
> > working in its privat
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 08:06:15PM -0800, jdow wrote:
> > header JD_MY_NAME ToCc =~
> > /[jdow|jdowjunkmail|[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
BTW, [] encloses character classes, whereas I think you wanted ().
(jdow|jdowjunkmail|wizardess) means "jdow", "jdowjunkmail", or "wizardess".
[jdow|jdowj
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have a postfix->procmail->spamc->spamd configuration with postfix not
> working in its private little jail.
>
> Most of that is immaterial since the problem exists within the spamc->
> spamd connection or with a "spamassassin "allow_user_rules 1" in the local.
At 07:36 PM 12/21/2004 -0800, jdow wrote:
score JD_MY_NAME 0.1
1.0 JD_MY_NAME To my ids at Earthlink.
The rule names are not duplicated anywhere. I have NO idea how the 0.1
score turned into a 1. No matter what score I place on the two private
rules that were hit I stil
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:36:15PM -0800, jdow wrote:
>
> The rule names are not duplicated anywhere. I have NO idea how the 0.1
> score turned into a 1. No matter what score I place on the two private
> rules that were hit I still get a score of +1. (I even tried -100.)
>
> Does anybody have any
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 09:36 pm, jdow wrote:
> I have a postfix->procmail->spamc->spamd configuration with postfix not
> working in its private little jail.
>
> header JD_MY_NAME ToCc =~
> /[jdow|jdowjunkmail|[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
> describe JD_MY_NAME To my ids at Ear
> > I am attempting to offload SA to a machine that is not my main MX
> server.
> > I have two machines, two NIC cards and a crossover cable, but after that
> I
> > get very lost. I believe there should be a way to make them aware of one
> > another using this direct connection w/out the need fo
I have a postfix->procmail->spamc->spamd configuration with postfix not
working in its private little jail.
Most of that is immaterial since the problem exists within the spamc->
spamd connection or with a "spamassassin http://dsbl.org/listing?195.167.65.249>]
1.4 RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAYRBL: NJAB
Too bad Open Sores licensing cannot allow for a requirement on products
that embed the Open Source in a commercial product pour some support back
into the Open Source project. (I note smart companies like RedHat,
Mandrake, IBM, and perhaps now even McAfee do that anyway. This is a
good thing.)
{^_
The magazines real masters are its advertisers and its potential Advertisers,
who dont want to be compared to a free product, so any attempt at contacting
SA people would have been done in away to avoid a real response.
Also the mag is aimed at the bigger end of the market where the money is,
w
From: "Kelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> jdow wrote:
> > PayPal seems to have started using PostDirect for their email service.
> > So the PayPal spoof test is breaking, rather dramatically.
>
> It looks like this has already been taken care of at PostDirect's end.
> Reverse DNS for 206.165.246.85 n
At 08:25 PM 12/21/2004, David B Funk wrote:
> However, beware... SA cannot always determine who the recipient of a
> message is. It does not get a copy of the envelope, thus it must try to
> decipher the recipient from the headers alone. If the message is Bcc'ed and
> your MTA doesn't insert a "for
At 03:09 PM 12/21/2004, Cameron Bales wrote:
I'm running CGPSA 1.4f4 under Communigate 4.2.7 and SpamAssassin 3.0.1.
I've installed ClamAV 0.8 and the SpamAssassin ClamAV plugin as described
here:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin
I get the following error in my mail headers:
X-Spa
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
[snip..]
> However, beware... SA cannot always determine who the recipient of a
> message is. It does not get a copy of the envelope, thus it must try to
> decipher the recipient from the headers alone. If the message is Bcc'ed and
> your MTA doesn't insert
Exactly. I can show him excerpets of emails (which I already did) and
it helps some. An article on the internet , a howto I don't know about
or an example of someone who did this and got blacklisted over the net
would be best. Maybe, like me, y'all have looked and not found anything
suitable
I've been told by my boss that I can't use anything BUT spamassassin,
because it is open source. ;-)
>>> Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/21/04 7:47 PM >>>
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 4:40:56 PM, Peter Benac wrote:
> And that makes it right because?
No, it makes it wrong. :-(
Jeff C.
__
> F
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 4:40:56 PM, Peter Benac wrote:
> And that makes it right because?
No, it makes it wrong. :-(
Jeff C.
__
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 12:32:41 PM, Peter Benac wrote:
>> If I understand you Mail Address correct aren't
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 2:52:35 AM, Michele Solutions wrote:
>> If you're not already, consider using the RBL
>> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org at the MTA level. It's quite safe and
>> rejects a lot of spam before it's even seen by SpamAssassin, etc.
> I'd have to disagree with you Jeff.
> A lot of
And that makes it right because?
Peter P. Benac, CCNA
Celtic Spirit Network Solutions
Providing Network and Systems Project Management and Installation and Web
Hosting.
Phone: 919-618-2557
Web: http://www.emacolet.com
Need quick reliable Systems or Network Management advice visit
http://www.
At 04:30 PM 12/21/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to get spamass-milter with user_prefs to work,
the only solution what i found yet is to use a global
user_prefs with the spamd virtual-config-dir option.
Is there a configuration possible which allows individual
user_prefs with spamass-mil
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 12:32:41 PM, Peter Benac wrote:
> If I understand you Mail Address correct aren't the Tax Payers the ones
> paying the bills. While I don't live in your County or State I would have
> to wonder why the people you work for NEED to spend the taxpayers money on
> someth
56 matches
Mail list logo
