Darren Coleman wrote:
Hi Loren,
Firstly, thanks for your help.
I have searched around rulesemporium without much success trying to find
these LOCAL_OBFU_* rules. I don't suppose you could tell me the
filename that they occur in could you? (I assume they will be in
/etc/mail/Spamassassin or whereve
Hi folks,
Thanks for telling me to train SA of hams too.
After some training, SA catches about 90% of spam, which the most score often
comes from BAYES_XX BODY.
My SA on the notebook is 3.0.2
And I did it on my 2.64 on the server too with similar result.
This bayes thing is really something :)
-
I am trying to write a rule to catch phishing schemes of this nature:
http://legit-stie.com/login
Is there anything wrong with this regexp?
/href=\"\d{1,3}(\.\d{1,3}){3}[^\"]*\"[^\>]*\>\s*http/
I realize that it is probably really error-prone, but that is why I am
throwing it out to this list. H
We're using the SASQL plugin with Squirrelmail and it seems to work OK with
3.02.
Be well, TR
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 17:55, Fahy, Michael wrote:
> We use spamassassin via sendmail, spamass-milter, spamc/spamd on Fedora.
>
>
>
> We are looking for a way to enable users to manage their own u
"Fahy, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 01/12/2005 04:55:55 PM:
> We use spamassassin via sendmail, spamass-milter, spamc/spamd on Fedora.
>
> We are looking for a way to enable users to manage
their own
> user_prefs file through a web interface.
[snip]
If you don't mind changing some of
Fahy, Michael wrote:
We use spamassassin via sendmail, spamass-milter, spamc/spamd on Fedora.
We are looking for a way to enable users to manage their own user_prefs
file through a web interface.
There is a nice plug-in for squirrelmail (an open source webmail
product, http://www.squirrelmail
We use spamassassin via sendmail, spamass-milter,
spamc/spamd on Fedora.
We are looking for a way to enable users to manage their own
user_prefs file through a web interface.
There is a nice plug-in for squirrelmail (an open source
webmail product, http://www.squirrelmail.org) that ena
I like to use RPMs from YUM or APT repositories where ever I can on RPM
based distrabutions. But I think for spamassassin, you are better off
going with CPAN to keep it up to date.
Martin
Hans du Plooy wrote:
I was wondering what method you guys & gals prefer for upgrading spamassassin
on the m
Hello,
We are trying to setup spamassassin and ldap. I you have any experiance
out there with this? We would appriciate the help.
Can I manage or configure the local.cf file to handle multiply Domains?
Thanks,
AFR
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 14:54 -0600, Bob McClure Jr wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:42:42PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> > I was wondering what method you guys & gals prefer for upgrading
> > spamassassin
> > on the more mainstream rpm based distros (MDK/Fedora/rh/SUSE).
> >
> > I have a SUSE
Anthony Metcalf wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have been hunting around on the web now for some weeks, trying to
> find an answer to my question. I think I am incapable of being
> succinct enough to get an answer through searching though. :)
>
> If there is a howto out there, or some other source that
thanks Robert...
> And don't worry about the ratio -- I feed Bayes spam/ham in a 10:1
ratio, and it's working wonderfully.
ok.. unfortunately i have to report that for me there isn't much
difference. overnight i got 88 messages in my mailbox. 72 of them were
spam - not detected by sa. in the same
Hans du Plooy wrote:
> I was wondering what method you guys & gals prefer for upgrading
> spamassassin on the more mainstream rpm based distros
> (MDK/Fedora/rh/SUSE).
I'm not running RedHat on my own systems any more, but I still have one
legacy RH7.3 system at work. All of my own new installs h
>
> I suspect some kind of timeout error (since I said "-t 60"
> and that's how log it took), but I'd like to be sure. I also
> notice that in this case the message size is close to the
> default maximum message size.
>
If it reaches the timeout, it will exit 74 (EX_IOERR).
Also, spamc wi
> From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Larry wrote:
> > What does it mean when spamc exits with an exit code of 98?
> >
> > I'm running version 3.0.2 and invoking spamc with
> >
> > spamc -E -t 60 -d blahblah.ornl.gov
>
> Are you sure it's 98 and not 68 (host name unknown), or 7
>
> What does it mean when spamc exits with an exit code of 98?
>
> I'm running version 3.0.2 and invoking spamc with
>
> spamc -E -t 60 -d blahblah.ornl.gov
>
Spamc exit codes...
EX_USAGE64 command line usage error
EX_DATAERR 65 data format error
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:42:42PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> I was wondering what method you guys & gals prefer for upgrading spamassassin
> on the more mainstream rpm based distros (MDK/Fedora/rh/SUSE).
>
> I have a SUSE 9.1 server, running spamassassin through amavisd-new. Works
> like a
I was wondering what method you guys & gals prefer for upgrading spamassassin
on the more mainstream rpm based distros (MDK/Fedora/rh/SUSE).
I have a SUSE 9.1 server, running spamassassin through amavisd-new. Works
like a charm. I decided to give the CPAN thing a try. logged in, updated
all
Justin Mason wrote:
agh, I thought we had this fixed previously. Regardless, it's
thoroughly fixed in current SVN...
- --j.
It (removing 71/8 etc) wasn't committed to 3.0, only trunk. 3.0 hasn't
been changed since September.
Daryl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Deugau writes:
> I understand some of why these are hardcoded like this, but this is VERY
> dangerous - just because it's reserved by IANA does NOT mean it can't be
> allocated to someone tomorrow! I once had a number of these "reserved"
> /8 bl
> [snip]
>
> > debug: looking up A records for 'merlin.boreal.org'
> > debug: A records for 'merlin.boreal.org': 216.70.16.15
> > debug: received-header: 'from' 71.8.49.195 has reserved IP
>
> This is definitely weird; 71.0.0.0/8 is NOT special in any way I know
> of.
>
> > Notice that the IP t
Christopher John Shaker wrote:
In my useage, SpamAssassin 3.0.2 works *way* better than the 2.XX
versions of
SpamAssassin. I've been training my Baysian filters, and they work
really well now.
SA 3.0.2 works so well that I've deleted most of my apx 400 local rules,
which plugged
leaks through S
Larry wrote:
What does it mean when spamc exits with an exit code of 98?
I'm running version 3.0.2 and invoking spamc with
spamc -E -t 60 -d blahblah.ornl.gov
Are you sure it's 98 and not 68 (host name unknown), or 78 (config
error)? Neither spamc nor spamd have an exit code of 98 anywhere in the
What does it mean when spamc exits with an exit code of 98?
I'm running version 3.0.2 and invoking spamc with
spamc -E -t 60 -d blahblah.ornl.gov
Sandy S wrote:
> I know there's been a lot of talk on the ALL_TRUSTED rule, but I
> don't remember seeing this issue and couldn't find it in a search of
> the list archives.
>
> We've gotten several spams recently that made it through because they
> hit the ALL_TRUSTED rule. We have a standard se
--On Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:36 PM -0800 Loren Wilton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the trick here is that at least one or more releases will contain both
features. This is different than saying "feature X will be replaced at
the next major release. We'll tell you what to use in its place
>-Original Message-
>From: Anthony Metcalf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:44 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Training byessian filter in a gatway situation.
>
>
>Hi All,
> I have been hunting around on the web now for some
>weeks, try
In my useage, SpamAssassin 3.0.2 works *way* better than the 2.XX versions
of
SpamAssassin. I've been training my Baysian filters, and they work really
well now.
SA 3.0.2 works so well that I've deleted most of my apx 400 local rules,
which plugged
leaks through SA 2.XX.
Chris Shaker
[EMAIL PR
Title: ignore me - testing my spf record
testing
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:23:50 -0500, Kevin Morwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> The spamassassin program is waiting for input. If you are checking
> rules add '--lint' to your command line. Alternately you might want to
> direct some input into it.
>
> I found this out once when I m
Hi
Im trying to use SQL user preferences and SQL awl.
I want my users to be able to choose whether they use awl, so in my test
setup have created a user and entered use_auto_whitelist 0 in the
userprefs table.
It seems to skip it, mentioning administrator setting, can you not set
this on a per u
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 January 2005 15:29
> To: Jack L. Stone; Loren Wilton; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
> rules
>
> Hmm..
>
> I got the following on that
Ade
might want to ask on the MS list.
There have been some issues with the Perl Mime tools recently so this
*may* be the issue.
you don't mention which version of MS you are using
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Ade Fewings wrote:
Dear all
Fo
Bill
wouldn't like to comment on the changes, I just see people see get
positive results from it (ie lowest memory usage).
I don't use spamd to invoke spamassassin myself so haven't suffered from
the problem. (I use MailScanner)
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel
Dear all
Forgive me straight away if any of this has been answered before or is
stupid on my part. Going through a bit of a baptism-of-fire at the
moment with regard to mail servers.
We have two mail servers running on Solaris 9 Sparc. Sendmail 8.12.10
utilizing MailScanner to call SpamAssass
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:43:33AM +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> There's a bugilla reference to this and a patch for the patch there as well
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
That patch is about a change in how the spamd processes are used,
right? Instead of using all --m
Hmm..
I got the following on that message (having reconfigured SURBL):
Content analysis details: (8.0 points, 5.0 required)
0.3 RM_hm_EmtyMsgidMessage ID is empty, or just spaces -
probable spamsign
0.3 SARE_WEOFFER BODY: Offers Something
2.5 MANGLED_CIALIS BODY: ma
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 07:19:38AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
>
> Since only one child process is so large and that they are all stared
> at the same time (e.g. processed the same number of requests) I would
> think its memory usage would be related to a specific message that
> spamd process handl
I know there's been a lot of talk on the ALL_TRUSTED rule, but I don't
remember seeing this issue and couldn't find it in a search of the list
archives.
We've gotten several spams recently that made it through because they hit
the ALL_TRUSTED rule. We have a standard setup and haven't had trouble
Cameron,
The spamassassin program is waiting for input. If you are checking
rules add '--lint' to your command line. Alternately you might want to
direct some input into it.
I found this out once when I missed typing '--lint' while I was testing
my installation.
HTH,
Kevin
Cameron Bales wrot
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:02PM -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
> BTW, this probably means that you have a really big whitelist or bayes db,
> and possibly expire isn't working as you think it is. Might be worth
> checking on that.
I'm not using bayes (AFAIK ;), as I'm doing site-wide filtering wit
> Tony
>
> you guys running that rule live at cam.ac.uk?
>
Just after posting I added almost the same rule as in the bug-4065
description only without the BAY/DAV checks and it works fine here.
Now I changed it to the rule as in the bug fix and that also works fine!
By the way this phx.gbl is not d
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
> you guys running that rule live at cam.ac.uk?
I haven't actually finished testing it properly yet, because it has got
muddled up in the upgrade to SA 3.0.2 which I keep forgetting to finish
:-)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dota
Tony
you guys running that rule live at cam.ac.uk?
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Menno van Bennekom wrote:
I noticed that FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK falsely triggers with this hotmail-email
that is sent from Out
Hello kalin,
Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 6:33:53 PM, you wrote:
km> also does the amount of processed messages matter after the initial
km> feed of more or less the same amounts of spam and ham?
km> because the spam piles much faster then miscategorized ham...
Yes, spam piles much faster tha
At 04:36 AM 1.12.2005 -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
>Well, just for grins I ran it here:
>
>Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> --
>--
> 2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SU
Hi I'm curious about what the output from spamassassin --local --debug
looks like on somebody else's system. I'm getting what seems to me
odd behaviour. The command is hanging on my machine (althouth
SpamAssassin is working fine)
example:
[Machine:~] user% spamassassin --local --debug
debug: Spa
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Menno van Bennekom wrote:
>
> I noticed that FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK falsely triggers with this hotmail-email
> that is sent from Outlook-Express via the http-hotmailserver.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4065
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://do
Hi,
I noticed that FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK falsely triggers with this hotmail-email
that is sent from Outlook-Express via the http-hotmailserver.
I think the meta __FORGED_OE is triggered, because the Message-ID is not
ending with 'hotmail.com':
Received: from hotmail.com (bay19-dav15.bay19.hotmail.com
Cameron Bales wrote:
>
>
> Could the plugin on the page:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin
> have some sort of version number/date attached so we could easily know
> what version we are talking about on the list, and if additions
> mentioned on the list have been incorporated?
Sur
> > --030204020505030202030005
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > name="clamav.pm"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Disposition: inline;
> > filename="clamav.pm"
> >
> > package ClamAV;
> > use strict;
> > use Mail::SpamAssassin;
> > use Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin;
> > u
Hi Loren,
Firstly, thanks for your help.
I have searched around rulesemporium without much success trying to find
these LOCAL_OBFU_* rules. I don't suppose you could tell me the
filename that they occur in could you? (I assume they will be in
/etc/mail/Spamassassin or wherever your local.cf file
Anthony,
I have a similar setup. The best solution I have found so far is
to setup IMAP on the filter box and drag emails into the IMAP accounts.
I toyed with using forwarded mails to those accounts. The only way I
found for that to work was to forward to the literal account name,
something
At 08:24 AM 1/12/2005, John Fleming wrote:
>
> the AWL adjustment is most likely ignored by the bayes stuff...this
make it a score of -5.5
>
> --
> Martin Hepworth
So it was tagged SPAM because of the total hits (32), yet learned as HAM
due to AWL?
No, you have it almost exactly backwards.
The
At 02:28 AM 1/12/2005, Dan Hollis wrote:
> But also to be fair, even though you give people N releases with both
> features available to do the conversion, there are going to be some
> significant number of users that simply won't do the conversion until they
> are forced to, even though they had 3
I posted this some time ago, but I was wondering if anyone had any
information on the timeframe for when some of the SARE custom rules
would be updated? I know there had been some posts by the developers
about updating and testing, but nothing new as of yet.
John
AutoWhiteList completely different from BAYES, but they do seem to
interact.
The AWL said this is spam, but bayes said no and ignored the AWL info.
Alot of peope tend to have problems with the AWL and I always turn it off.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Te
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Hepworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Spamassassin"
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: AWL problem??
John Fleming wrote:
I've never seen this before - I don't know squat about AWL, but I sure
nee
Thanks all. I did think SURBL was enabled but obviously it isn't.
Loren: I will also have a look at additional rules that I may have
missed.
Thanks again.
Daz
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 January 2005 12:08
> To: Spamassassin
> Subject: R
Hi All,
I have been hunting around on the web now for some weeks, trying to
find an answer to my question. I think I am incapable of being succinct
enough to get an answer through searching though. :)
If there is a howto out there, or some other source that will answer
this question, pleas
John Fleming wrote:
I've never seen this before - I don't know squat about AWL, but I sure need
help understanding the following headers!
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=26.1 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_HEAD_XBEEN
autolearn=ham version=2.64
X-Spam-Report:
* -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian sp
Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SUBJ Obfuscated 'TADALAFIL' in subject
0
I've never seen this before - I don't know squat about AWL, but I sure need
help understanding the following headers!
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=26.1 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_HEAD_XBEEN
autolearn=ham version=2.64
X-Spam-Report:
* -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SUBJ Obfuscated 'TADALAFIL' in subject
0.3 SARE_WEOFFER
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 3:20:17 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm running the latest version of SpamAssassin (3.0.2), with a healthy
> Bayes database (I believe) and pretty much all of the available rules
> from rulesemporium.com and I have noticed recently, particularly from
> comment
Hi,
I'm running the latest version of SpamAssassin (3.0.2), with a healthy
Bayes database (I believe) and pretty much all of the available rules
from rulesemporium.com and I have noticed recently, particularly from
comments from my users, that SA is missing a lot of clear spasm.
I have attached o
Bill
gmame's search was screwed yesterday. will try agian today and bookmark
the thing ;-)
ok the search term on gmame you need is "low memory"
There's a bugilla reference to this and a patch for the patch there as well
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Loren Wilton wrote:
> But also to be fair, even though you give people N releases with both
> features available to do the conversion, there are going to be some
> significant number of users that simply won't do the conversion until they
> are forced to, even though they had 3
> From: Keith Whyte
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:15 PM
[...]
>
> anyway, on the messages where that regex does trigger, the resulting
> mail is unreadable in Pine, which complains about not being able to open
> text attachment, and thunderbird on windows via imap, which in some
> cases j
Gary Funck wrote:
Attached, is a Perl script, mdf2sa.pl, which converts spam messages
that have been marked up by MIMEDefang, into a form that is similar
to the message format used by SA. Also attached is a simple
Hi Gary, just tried out that script, and sorry to say it didn't work at all.
a lo
> By the way, I set --max-conn-per-child=20 (yes, very low) and that
> seems to have solved the problem with a given spamd process eating
> memory.
>
> But I'm still seeing a lot of:
>
> Jan 11 10:03:57 mardy spamd[13158]: server hit by SIGCHLD
> Is that a result of the child process being kill
> > Once you go that route, you must ALWAYS go that route, for every change,
or
> > your efforts are more-or-less pointless. 90% backward compatibility
isn't
> > really much better than 0%. If the user has to edit a config file to
> > upgrade, it's a pain.
Well, of course you don't have to always
At 08:46 PM 1/11/2005, List Mail User wrote:
Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
MTA; The critical headers are:
> > Received: from 61.32.186.51 by kukla (envelope-from
<[EMAIL P
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 11 18:23:25 2005
>...
>
>On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:46:58PM -0800, List Mail User wrote:
>> Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
>> the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
>> MTA; The criti
I'm thinking it's because the message is in multi-part embedded multi-part
mime mail, but I'm not sure.
I'm stuck running 2.55 for another 3 months or so before I move to FC3, so
until then, does anyone have any advice? This is the second message that's
like this, and I'm sure the numbers are goi
also does the amount of processed messages matter after the initial
feed of more or less the same amounts of spam and ham?
because the spam piles much faster then miscategorized ham...
i'm asking because if i use a script that periodically will process spam
and ham from 2 accounts where they
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:46:58PM -0800, List Mail User wrote:
> Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
> the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
> MTA; The critical headers are:
>
> > > Received: from 61.32.186.51 by kuk
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:54:56PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 07:26 PM 1/11/2005, Ollie Acheson wrote:
> >The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a
> >result
> >of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
> >information in "From:"
>
>
Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
MTA; The critical headers are:
> > Received: from 61.32.186.51 by kukla (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > uid
71) with qmail-scanner-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 07:42 PM 1/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> >Ollie Acheson writes:
> > > The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a
> > result
> > > of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembl
>>yes. but there isn't anything indicating that the spam db are used or
>>tests are being done against them. should there be any?
>>i read in the documentation that use_bayes is set to 1 (true) by default
>>so i don't have to add anything in the user-conf except the db location:
>>
>>bayes_path /p
Justin Mason wrote:
Well, both are good arguments to keep that behaviour out of code, and in
the config file, such as:
in one file:
loadplugin MyAvPlugin
add_header all X-Virus-Status __MYAVPLUGINSTATUS__
in the other:
loadplugin MyOtherAvPlugin
add_header all X-Virus-Status __MYOTH
At 07:42 PM 1/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
Ollie Acheson writes:
> The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a
result
> of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
> information in "From:"
what about the info in Return-Path:?
Justin.. The Re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > Hi Daryl --
> >
> > I've been thinking about this -- the ability for plugins to add
> > headers.
> >
> > If a plugin can add new template-tags (as described in
> > Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf), and
At 07:26 PM 1/11/2005, Ollie Acheson wrote:
The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a result
of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
information in "From:"
1) you checked your user_prefs (hopefully not user.prefs) did you check the
*res
Justin Mason wrote:
> Hi Daryl --
I've been thinking about this -- the ability for plugins to add
headers.
If a plugin can add new template-tags (as described in
Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf), and the plugin's config file then
sets them using add_header, that should work, right?
That would be the best
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ollie Acheson writes:
> The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a result
> of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
> information in "From:"
what about the info in Return-Path:?
>
> Spamas
The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a result
of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
information in "From:"
Spamassassin is running at system level, called by qmail-scanner-queue.pl
(along with clamav). qmail installed as net-qmail-
88 matches
Mail list logo
