At 06:05 PM 1/4/2005, Yackley, Matt wrote:
Is anyone else seeing relays.visi.com as unreachable? While tracking
down an unrelated DNS issue, I noticed that all of my requests to
209.98.98.115 were timing out, so I have disabled the RBL test for
visi.com.
local.cf
score RCVD_IN_RSL 0
Thought I'd se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yackley, Matt writes:
> Is anyone else seeing relays.visi.com as unreachable? While tracking
> down an unrelated DNS issue, I noticed that all of my requests to
> 209.98.98.115 were timing out, so I have disabled the RBL test for
> visi.com.
>
> loc
Is anyone else seeing relays.visi.com as unreachable? While tracking
down an unrelated DNS issue, I noticed that all of my requests to
209.98.98.115 were timing out, so I have disabled the RBL test for
visi.com.
local.cf
score RCVD_IN_RSL 0
Thought I'd send a heads up in case its not just me
Ch
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:26:10PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> Ray Anderson wrote:
>
> > I tried to deal with this one and got told to upgrade, which I cannot do at
> > this time.
>
> Same here. I was hoping that the 2 and 3 branches would live parallel lives
> for
> a while.
> I don't underst
I hope folks going to the MIT spam conference will please
consider mentioning SURBLs at least informally. In case
it's useful, I've updated the flyer I gave out at CEAS:
http://www.surbl.org/flyer.html
Comments are welcomed.
Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Per Jessen wrote:
> So the question is - what is the need for maintaining 2.64?
Little to none, IMO. I'm baffled by what people are doing to their poor
servers to make them break the way I constantly see reported on this
list and elsewhere.
> Show of hands,
> who's still on 2.64 with no exact
Justin Mason wrote:
> we're already supporting two versions -- trunk and 3.0.x. 2.6x as well
> would be very painful, but a "maintainance team" who want to do that would
> be welcome to do so ;)
So the question is - what is the need for maintaining 2.64? Show of hands,
who's still on 2.64 with
Keith Whyte wrote:
i got super vicious and ran:
$ find -type f -mtime +30 -exec rm {} \;
in /usr/lib/perl5
Actually I lie here above.
I'm posting again in case anybody else might be a reckless as me and
DESTROY their perl instalation and then blame it on my mail.
I ran
find -type f -mtime +30 -e
Justin Mason wrote:
same perl binary being used?
yes, but I have fixed the problem
i got super vicious and ran:
$ find -type f -mtime +30 -exec rm {} \;
in /usr/lib/perl5
then i ran make install again in the perl 5.8.6 source tree.
perl went about making a bunch of modules that it must have skip
On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, 6:45:12 AM, help help wrote:
> Yea, im blocking at the MTA level. Im running a small ISP and dont really
> think I want to remove spamcop BL, which is my best blacklist. My SA
> processing time will really go sky high from the 3 seconds now if it has to
> process anot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone else having issues with the fact that spamcop has many of Yahoo's
bulk servers listed. These servers handle their mailling lists and groups
accounts. This is more a blacklist question, but is there anyway to
whitelist IP's that are in blacklists?
Is there any way t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Whyte writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
>
> >
> >not off the top of my head, but for this module, this one-liner will
> >test if it's working or not:
> >
> >perl -we 'use Digest::SHA1 qw(sha1_hex);print sha1_hex("1"),"\n";'
> >
> >should output:
>
Justin Mason wrote:
not off the top of my head, but for this module, this one-liner will
test if it's working or not:
perl -we 'use Digest::SHA1 qw(sha1_hex);print sha1_hex("1"),"\n";'
should output:
356a192b7913b04c54574d18c28d46e6395428ab
that works!
~$ perl -we 'use Digest::SHA1 qw(sha1_hex);
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 09:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anyone else having issues with the fact that spamcop has many of Yahoo's
> bulk servers listed. These servers handle their mailling lists and groups
> accounts. This is more a blacklist question, but is there anyway to
> whitelist IP's
At 02:06 PM 1/3/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the past month I've seen a ~25% dropoff in the amount of spam we're
receiving on a daily basis. Anyone else seeing a significant drop in
spam recently?
I only noticed a short-term drop off during the last two weeks, apparently
due to the holidays
I am currently running version 2 of spamassassin on a rh9 server with
sendmail. I am going to switch it to my fedora core 2 server that is
running postfix. I am not exactly sure of what I am doing ... Currently I
do not use mysql or bayes, although I would like to. When I install
spamassassin 3,
I've disabled all the plugins and added MIME-Base64-Perl(don't know if that
will help or not)... I've gotten a lot of complaints regarding time it
takes for messages to get through - up to 30 minutes internally... Perhaps
the timing issue may be from the build up of email in the SPAM(35,000) and
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
Easy fix.. I didn't have Digest::base so I installed
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/G/GA/GAAS/Digest-1.10.tar.gz
I re-installed Digest::base on my system, still no joy. not the same error
The full error in debug log was..
@400041da1dc32be8af3c razor2: r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Whyte writes:
> >If you're at a loose end, try blowing away the on-disk files for
> >Digest::SHA1 and reinstalling that module from CPAN.
> >
> Have done - I wonder should I do the same with other modules. any body
> know how and easy way to te
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Actually, I've seen this when one perl version tries to use another
perl's modules. Another possibility is that the version of Digest::SHA1
is too old, and needs to be updated to a newer version.
I have the latest Digest::SHA1 fr
Richard Ozer wrote:
I have sa 3.0.2 and perl 5.8.6 running happily on six different
servers right now.
That is good news.
After installing 5.8.6, you need to make sure that your cpan module
installations and Makefile commands are being done under 5.8.6.
Unless you explicitly removed the earlier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Doesn't sound normal. Can you find a message that triggers this, and
see if it still does so when "spamassassin" is run from the commandline?
sounds like a bug.
- --j.
Derek Billingsley writes:
> I'm seeing high memory usage & CPU load and these er
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Per Jessen writes:
> Ray Anderson wrote:
> > I tried to deal with this one and got told to upgrade, which I cannot do at
> > this time.
>
> Same here. I was hoping that the 2 and 3 branches would live parallel lives
> for
> a while.
> I don't unde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Actually, I've seen this when one perl version tries to use another
perl's modules. Another possibility is that the version of Digest::SHA1
is too old, and needs to be updated to a newer version.
The error message 'Can't locate auto/Digest/SHA1/sha1
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SA 3.0.2 and low memory patch
>From: Andy Jezierski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:26:08 -0600
...
>> The above patch certainly doesn't seem to be in 3.0.2. However the
>> patch applies cleanly with a few offsets. I've been using
Dennis Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
01/04/2005 10:23:02 AM:
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: SA 3.0.2 and low memory patch
> >From: Andy Jezierski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:33:12 -0600
> >
> >Does SA 3.0.2 contain the test patch for low memory machines?
Matt Kettler wrote:
> It's not your version that's obsolete, it's the minimum version that SA
> 2.6x must run on...
>
> SA 2.64 must run on perl 5.0005 or higher.
> SA 3.0 only supports 5.61 and up.
Got it.
I know everyone's probably rapidly tiring of me carrying on, but this particular
little
sebastian ovide wrote:
> anybody know if there is any problem in upgrading spamassassin from
> 2.55 to 3.0.2 on woody from sources (so with make, make install)
Upgrading all of the sources by hand of course works fine. But the
process can be involved and tedious.
I recommend using the www.ba
At 10:39 AM 1/4/2005, Per Jessen wrote:
> Keeping ahead of spammers and trying to work on a 2.6 version, which
> has to run on an obsolete version of perl few of the developers have any
> experience with, in parallel with the 3.0 version, is even harder.
Which obsolete version of perl does 2.64 req
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:08:59 + (GMT)
sebastian ovide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> anybody know if there is any problem in upgrading spamassassin from
> 2.55 to 3.0.2 on woody from sources (so with make, make install)
>
> thanks in advance
I have a Debian woody box that I just
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: SA 3.0.2 and low memory patch
>From: Andy Jezierski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:33:12 -0600
>
>Does SA 3.0.2 contain the test patch for low memory machines?
>Probably not, since nothing was mentioned in the release note.
>That being the
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 03:26 PM 1/4/2005 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >Ray Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >> What is the best approach with stuff like this - should I
> > >> simply carry on and
> > >> open a bugreport or is best to bring it up here first?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I tried t
I'm seeing high memory usage & CPU load and these errors in my maillog:
Jan 4 08:38:28 penguin spamd[9759]: Deep recursion on subroutine
"Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish" at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm line 666,
line 4327.
Jan 4 08:38:21 penguin q
Hi all,
anybody know if there is any problem in upgrading spamassassin from
2.55 to 3.0.2 on woody from sources (so with make, make install)
thanks in advance
___
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new f
Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 03:26 PM 1/4/2005 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
>>Same here. I was hoping that the 2 and 3 branches would live parallel
>>lives for a while.
>
> Highly unlikely, largely due to lack of developer resources. SA has enough
> of a devel team to support their existing projects, bu
At 03:26 PM 1/4/2005 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
Ray Anderson wrote:
>> What is the best approach with stuff like this - should I
>> simply carry on and
>> open a bugreport or is best to bring it up here first?
>>
>
> I tried to deal with this one and got told to upgrade, which I cannot do at
> this t
Lisa Casey wrote:
> If you use Sendmail as your MTA, you can whitelist yahoo and yahoogroups in
> your access database.
Same goes for postfix, obviously.
--
Per Jessen, Zurich
Let your spam stop here -- http://www.spamchek.dk
Hi,
If you use Sendmail as your MTA, you can whitelist yahoo and yahoogroups in
your access database. I just did that myself as I've had a couple of
customers complain that their yahoo groups e-mail is bouncing.
Lisa CAsey
Netlink 2000, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Yea, im blocking at the MTA level. Im running a small ISP and dont really
think I want to remove spamcop BL, which is my best blacklist. My SA
processing time will really go sky high from the 3 seconds now if it has to
process another couple thousand a day...
> From: "Kang, Joseph S." <[EMAIL
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:17 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: spamcop question
>
>
> Anyone else having issues with the fact that spamcop has many
> of Yahoo's bulk servers listed. These
Ray Anderson wrote:
>> What is the best approach with stuff like this - should I
>> simply carry on and
>> open a bugreport or is best to bring it up here first?
>>
>
> I tried to deal with this one and got told to upgrade, which I cannot do at
> this time.
Same here. I was hoping that the 2 a
Anyone else having issues with the fact that spamcop has many of Yahoo's
bulk servers listed. These servers handle their mailling lists and groups
accounts. This is more a blacklist question, but is there anyway to
whitelist IP's that are in blacklists?
> meta FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK (__FORGED_OE || __FORGED_OUTLOOK_DOLLARS)
> meta __FORGED_OE (__OE_MUA && !__OE_MSGID_1 &&
> !__OE_MSGID_2 && !__UNUSABLE_MSGID)
> header __OE_MSGID_1MESSAGEID =~
> /^<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>$/m
> header __OE_MSGID_2MESSAGEID =~
> /^<(?:[0-9a-f]{8}|[0-9a-f]{12})[
FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK fires incorrectly on the following:
Received: from hotmail.com (bay23-dav3.bay23.hotmail.com [64.4.22.183])
by checkpoint.spamchek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2EA5DCED
for <%%>; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 07:46:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail pickup service by hot
Keith
This *could* be as a result of syntax changes in the rules. I guess the
make test could be looking in /etc/mail/spamassassin for local rules and
reading the the 'old' 2.6 format. You don't say if you've already got an
existing SA installation on that machine.
I have noticed that SA 3.x wi
Eric
you might want to make sure all the prerequisite Perl modules are
installed and upto date.
mailScanner has had some similar issues which where (I think, only two
coffees so far this morning) caused by the MIME modules.
If you can't get any further I'll try and dig out more info, but I'd
s
All,
> email builder wrote:
> >
> > >How much email are you processing ?
> >
> > Well, just the other day we had an average of 48 msgs/min (max 255/min)
> > get run through SA. Can't say today yet because can't run our stats
> > tools until the busy hours are over cuz SA is hogging the CPU. ;
I have sa 3.0.2 and perl 5.8.6 running happily on six different servers right
now.
After installing 5.8.6, you need to make sure that your cpan module installations and
Makefile commands are being done under 5.8.6. Unless you explicitly removed the earlier
version of Perl, you risk calling the
>
> >
> > By the way, I tried installing an earlier version of Digest::SHA1,
> > same error.
> >
> > Has anybody out there got SA 3.0.2 and perl 5.8.6 running happily?
> >
>
> FYI, I see this also right now in spamd debug log.
>
> razor2: razor2 check failed: Bad file descriptor Can't locate
>
> By the way, I tried installing an earlier version of
> Digest::SHA1, same error.
>
> Has anybody out there got SA 3.0.2 and perl 5.8.6 running happily?
>
FYI, I see this also right now in spamd debug log.
razor2: razor2 check failed: Bad file descriptor
Can't locate auto/Digest/SHA1/rese
Louis LeBlanc wrote:
On 01/03/05 08:28 PM, Keith Whyte sat at the `puter and typed:
make test fails horribly
with:
Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for non-method Digest::SHA1::sha1_hex() is
deprecated at ../blib/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Bayes.pm line 987.
and
Can't locate auto/Digest/SHA1/sha1_hex.al in
On 01/03/05 08:28 PM, Keith Whyte sat at the `puter and typed:
> I've seen a few requests for help on this, but no answers:
> nothing comes up on google.
>
> I'd had perl 5.6.0 on a system and yesterday I upgraded to 5.8.6 in
> order to install SA 3.0.2
>
> make test fails horribly
> with:
> Use
I've seen a few requests for help on this, but no answers:
nothing comes up on google.
I'd had perl 5.6.0 on a system and yesterday I upgraded to 5.8.6 in
order to install SA 3.0.2
make test fails horribly
with:
Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for non-method Digest::SHA1::sha1_hex() is
deprecated at .
Kelson wrote:
Keith Whyte wrote:
i send viruses to /dev/null but i bounce spam, partly in the vain
hope that some spammers might actually back off after multiple
failures, and mainly in case of false positives, so that the sender
knows the message wasn't delivered.
And just to stave off the pot
Steven Stern wrote:
> If you can get away with the delay, greylisting does an amazing job. I get
> almost no spams with it enabled. Unfortunately, even though it's sent to
> request a retry after 30 seconds from the sender, some senders can take up to
> three hours before retrying.
At SMTP time t
Hi!
Any good reason why njabl.org would portscan me to anyone knowledge.
Doug Block
Chief Information Officer of Efast Funding
been detected!, From 209.208.0.15/20252 to 66.226.235.118/38994, using
protocol TCP (on zone Untrust,interface ethernet3) occurred 1 times
[3] 2005-01-03 18:23:03 syst
Any good reason why njabl.org would portscan me to anyone knowledge.
Doug Block
Chief Information Officer of Efast Funding
-Original Message-
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: None
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NetScreen Event Alarms
[1] 2005-01-03 18:23:06 system-alert-00016: Port
I would hope that site doesn't end up in *ANY* used lists. I tried 5 major
isps and sites off the top of my head, including google.com, and *every one*
of them showed up in the list.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gary Funck" <[EMAIL PROTEC
58 matches
Mail list logo
