Larry wrote:
Have you tried it with the -E switch?
The only way I can reproduce the return code, 98, is if I pass spamc a
valid, running, spamd host and give it /dev/null as input. Passing it a
bad hostname results, expectedly, in 68.
spamc -E -t 60 -d valid.spamd.server < /dev/null
Why you wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 12. Januar 2005 21:42 schrieb Hans du Plooy:
> 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 spamassassi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 13. Januar 2005 09:47 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Hello all,
>
> i configured procmail like this site describes:
> http://www.stearns.org/doc/spamassassin-setup.current.html#autoreporting
>
> now my question:
> how can i test if sa-lear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 13. Januar 2005 12:47 schrieb Joe Zitnik:
> We've been having a group of the same type of e-mails making it through
> spamassassin. These are the e-mails that have the "get a capable html
> e-mailer" line in them. I have yet to see any
Interesting problem:
I blew away the old Bayes DB because I couldn't get it to
upgrade for 3.0.2. No problem, I'll just run some spam/ham through
sa-learn to create a new one. So after running 15000 spams through or
so, about 1200 or so at a time, I tried to learn some spam from today.
Sa-l
Jason Novak wrote:
I'm currently running spamassassin 3.0.2 and everything seems to be
running well. sa-learn works correctly when I want to learn spam and
ham messages. My only question is when it comes to looking at the data
when I run 'sa-learn --dump all' I get the following example.
[snip
I was suggesting - a while ago, to make a more general check (which would
probably
be a plugin) - to detect phish based on different urls (e.g check whether they
end up at the
same ip) but was told that quite a lot of legit email have differing urls
While I understand that datbased systems may g
At 06:27 AM 1/13/2005, Ingo Reinhart wrote:
Hello!
How can I test for an empty Mailbody?
Any existing rule?
Best Regards,
Ingo
Grab the latest SVN image from the downloads page and look at EMPTY_MESSAGE.
Have you tried it with the -E switch?
L
> -Original Message-
> From: Dallas L. Engelken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:09 PM
> Posted To: sa-users
> Conversation: spamc exit code 98
> Subject: RE: spamc exit code 98
>
> >
> > I suspect some kind of t
John Fleming wrote:
Bayes in the current version will not autolearn against itself (will
not auto-learn as ham something it thought was spam, or v.v.) -- it
might be a good enhancement to also have bayes look at AWL if active,
and if AWL disagrees with the auto-learn judgment, then do not
auto-lear
At 03:38 AM 1/13/2005, werner detter wrote:
> Yeah, so? Why should this inhibit you from using spamd now?
hm, but even if i implement spamd/spamc - i still got the problem that
every mail (even if
it's bigger then e.g. 4mb is passed through spamd/spamc then insteat of
spamassassin.
please correct
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:42:31AM -0600, Jason Novak wrote:
>
> In the previous version of spamassassin I've been able to see what the
> data actually is (rather than the example of '3bd6a7ead4'). Any ideas
> what I may be missing?
>
SA 3.0 switched from storing tokens in a raw format to sto
Hi,
I am runnig
FreeBSD 4.9
SpamAssassin Server version 3.0.1
Perl 5.6.1
and get at lot of "deep recursions" .
spamd[29517]: Deep recursion on subroutine
"Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish" at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
line 659.
spamd[29517
Thanks Bob & Joseph. Good suggestions!
Rob McEwen
> > Another possible solution would be to have the list server
> add "SA: "
> > to the beginning of each subject line (when not already there).
> >
> > Any thoughts? Suggestions?
> >
> > Rob McEwen
>
> A useful line in the header of every SA list message is
>
> List-Id:
>
> Why not make Out
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:17:08AM -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> RE: SA List Messages Subject/From Indicators
>
> Often, when I receive messages from the SA list, the FROM displays the name
> of the sender rather than the name of the list. Furthermore, the SUBJECT
> line is often an obvious SA-relate
>-Original Message-
>From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:40 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: phishing rule
>
>
>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 r
I have a
question regarding sa-learn.
I'm currently running spamassassin 3.0.2 and everything seems to be
running well. sa-learn works correctly when I want to learn spam and
ham messages. My only question is when it comes to looking at the data
when I run 'sa-learn --dump all' I get the fol
Dan wrote:
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
At 05:38 AM 1/13/2005, bubba wrote:
I'm running Spamassassin 2.63, which is successfully tagging *most*
messages. However, some mail is getting through untagged.
The main differences between the headers of those that are tagged and those
that aren't are the "for" secion in each received section.
Hm
From: "Ingo Reinhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: empty body
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:27:05 +0100
> Hello!
>
> How can I test for an empty Mailbody?
>
> Any existing rule?
I don't know caching rule for 'empty mailbody spam'.
But, you can use RBL and Bayesian filter.
--
Nothing but a peace si
Ron
problems with the FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK rule.
see http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4065 for a possible
fix..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Ron McKeating wrote:
Hi we run all our incoming email through spamassassin (uptodate
They are enabled. My problem is more that some of these e-mails are
getting caught by my rule and some aren't. When I run the ones that are
getting past through spamassassin manually, they hit my rule as well and
are above my spam threshold. So why do they make it past?
>>> Martin Hepworth <[EM
Hi we run all our incoming email through spamassassin (uptodate as of
last month) we notice however that a disproportionate number of emails
from hotmail get false positived. Is anybody aware of a reason for
this ?
Ron
Joe
enable the URIRBL rules, these are very effective against html spam.
(make sure you have the latest Net:DNS module installed and the init.pre
file in /etc/mail/spamassassin and the plugin turned on).
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Joe Z
We've been having a group of the same type of e-mails making it through
spamassassin. These are the e-mails that have the "get a capable html
e-mailer" line in them. I have yet to see any legitimate e-mail with
that line, so I made a custom rule to score 11 points for that slogan.
I have also fe
Hello!
How can I test for an empty Mailbody?
Any existing rule?
Best Regards,
Ingo
Bubba
timeouts?
anything in any log files around the time these emails where processed?
How are you running SA - spamd/spamc, procmail, amavis-new,
MailScanner...???
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
bubba wrote:
Hi,
I'm running Spamassassin
Hi,
I'm running Spamassassin 2.63, which is successfully tagging *most*
messages. However, some mail is getting through untagged.
The main differences between the headers of those that are tagged and those
that aren't are the "for" secion in each received section.
Example headers from a succesf
This server is only processing a small amount of email comparatively,
perhaps a few thousand a day. I haven't got around to setting up MRTG
on it.
I have however passed the URL across to another sysadmin at the company
who is running our main SA+Qmail server, which easily does 100k+ of
email a da
Richard
hmm "perl -MCPAN -eshell" and
install J/JM/JMASON/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64.tar.gz
will prob choke as well then :-(
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Richard Connamacher wrote:
Tried that. While 'perl Makefile.PL' seemed to work (after givin
werner detter wrote:
hm, but even if i implement spamd/spamc - i still got the problem that
every mail (even if
it's bigger then e.g. 4mb is passed through spamd/spamc then insteat of
spamassassin.
please correct me if i'm wrong
No. Spamc will not pass messages larger than 250K to spamd by d
On Thursday, January 13, 2005, 1:19:58 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
>> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> % dig 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a
>>
>> ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a
>> ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
>> ;; got answer:
>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUER
Tried that. While 'perl Makefile.PL' seemed to work (after giving me a
warning), 'make' choked because it couldn't find any installed C compilers.
(I doubt I'll be able to install the updated MakeMaker that it
requested. However, that wouldn't change the fact that it seems to want
a C compiler to
Richard
could always use SA 2.64...
would work fine, might even be able to get the URIRBL pluging installed
which is really useful.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Richard Connamacher wrote:
I've got a web hosting account that has been receiv
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 January 2005 01:07
> To: Jeff Chan
> Cc: Darren Coleman; 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
>
> On Wednesd
RE: SA List Messages Subject/From Indicators
Often, when I receive messages from the SA list, the FROM displays the name
of the sender rather than the name of the list. Furthermore, the SUBJECT
line is often an obvious SA-related phrase... BUT NOT ALWAYS. I find it
annoying sometimes when this hap
Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Another reason
[snip]
> I shall be sticking to 2.64 for the forsee-able future as 3.02 gives me
> no advantage and quite a high likelihood of more spam dropping through
> the system!
Not specific to Martins reply, but thanks to all the responses regarding
continued u
Hello all,
i configured procmail like this site describes:
http://www.stearns.org/doc/spamassassin-setup.current.html#autoreporting
now my question:
how can i test if sa-learn learns the spam/ham mails right.
below are the executed commands:
/usr/bin/spamassassin -r -d -a
/usr/b
hi again,
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 11:53 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote:
thanks for your help, migration to spamc/spamd wouldn't be the
problem -> it's even
planned within the next half year. there is only one reason this
hasn't been done so far:
there is no desicion from the company management
Bayes in the current version will not autolearn against itself (will
not auto-learn as ham something it thought was spam, or v.v.) -- it
might be a good enhancement to also have bayes look at AWL if active,
and if AWL disagrees with the auto-learn judgment, then do not
auto-learn.
Looking at http:/
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:43:34PM +, Anthony Metcalf wrote:
>
> As the server my mail client interacts with is not the one spam
> filtering, I would like to set up two accounts on the gateway box, ham
> and spam, so I can farward mail to those accounts, and have spamassassin
> learn what is h
I've got a web hosting account that has been receiving an enormous
amount of spam recently. While I can ssh into it, I can edit my
sendmail.cf file, and I can run Perl 5.6.0 applications, I cannot access
C compiler tools.
Also, the version of Perl included is only 5.6.0. SpamAssassin 3.0.0 and
lat
Hello Joe,
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 5:31:32 AM, you wrote:
JZ> I posted this some time ago, but I was wondering if anyone had any
JZ> information on the timeframe for when some of the SARE custom rules
JZ> would be updated? I know there had been some posts by the developers
JZ> about updatin
Hello John,
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 4:54:24 AM, you wrote:
JF> I've never seen this before - I don't know squat about AWL, but I
JF> sure need help understanding the following headers!
JF> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=26.1 required=5.0
JF> tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_HEAD_XBEEN autolearn=ham
Does anyone have a script/perl file that will dump auto-whitelists,
including the scores?
Simon
> sa-learn --dbpath /var/spamdb/bayes --dump magic
i get this:
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 2852 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 2515 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 116330
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:04:12PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Ollie, Something isn't adding up in a big way. Have you run spamassassin
> --lint lately? Perhaps SA is getting heavily confused.
Indeed you are right about things not adding up.
>
> Is there any chance you could re-run the messag
thanks Jon..
>
> first, your Bayes rules don't appear to be hitting.
that's what i'm thinking also...
> this could be because you haven't trained enough mail. you need minimum
200 > ham and 200 spam before they kick in.
i did feed about 2500 messages into both spam and ham the first time, last
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 4:57:57 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 8:15:12 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
>> Figured out why URIBL_SBL wasn't firing for me for that email - I can't
>> even resolve that domain! Have tried resolving it on several machines I
>> have shell acces
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 8:15:12 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
> Figured out why URIBL_SBL wasn't firing for me for that email - I can't
> even resolve that domain! Have tried resolving it on several machines I
> have shell access to (including external machines who peer with
> different provid
kalin mintchev wrote:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.6 required=3.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24,
DRUGS_ERECTILE,DRUGS_PAIN,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD,MIME_BASE64_TEXT
autolearn=no version=3.0.2
note that the ones that were detected scored 4 - lower than the actual
default of the recomended 5
i
52 matches
Mail list logo
