Thanks for that. Just reset the permissions and the owner to 'spamd' which
spamd is running under. I'll see if anything has changed in the morning.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ozer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 February 2005 21:58
To: Paul J. Smith
Cc: users@spamassassin.a
I had a similar issue and noticed that my bayes database files did not have the proper
owner or permissions. That prevented auto learning from functioning.
RO
Paul J. Smith wrote:
Still setting up spamassassin. I've got it running and auto learning is
enabled. It's been running all yesterday
On 2/21/2005 5:38 PM +0100, Martin Randall wrote:
I currently use :-
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
relays.ordb.org
bl.spamcop.net
opm.blitzed.org
cbl.abuseat.org
dnsbl.njabl.org
dnsbl.sorbs.net
query.bondedsender.org
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org contains cbl.abuseat.org
so no need to do that extra lookup
Niek
--
>-Original Message-
>From: George Georgalis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 1:10 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI
>
>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: George Georgalis
>>>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:15 AM
I get for almost every incoming message an SPF_FAIL with score 0.88,
although the domain may not have any SPF record or the relay is listed in
the SPF record. I upgraded to SA 3.0.2 just to see if that cures it, but
it's still the same. Am I missing something? Here's an excerpt from debug.
(rea
>>-Original Message-
>>From: George Georgalis
>>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:15 AM
>>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI
>
>Regarding the comment on too much disclosure in the logs, there is
>nothing keeping spammers from diff-ing the cf files, I
On Monday, February 21, 2005, 8:26:04 AM, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
> Any spams that make it past because they're not showing up in SURBL, I
> report to SpamCop.net so that they eventually will be on a list. Can
> anyone recommend other ways of actively reporting non-BL'd spams?
Please keep reporting th
On Monday, February 21, 2005, 8:38:56 AM, Martin Randall wrote:
> As this can change quite a lot, and some RBL's can be pretty draconian, and
> therefore best avoided, what are people's preference for RBL lookups at the
> moment.
> I currently use :-
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
> relays.ordb.org
>
Hello.
As this can change quite a lot, and some RBL's can be pretty draconian, and
therefore best avoided, what are people's preference for RBL lookups at the
moment.
I currently use :-
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
relays.ordb.org
bl.spamcop.net
opm.blitzed.org
cbl.abuseat.org
dnsbl.njabl.org
dnsbl.sorb
At 10:12 AM 2/21/2005, Bryan Haase wrote:
This weekend I had several email hit as whitelisted which are clearly not.
Would the following line cause all emails to be whitelisted?
whitelist_from * @domain.com
I have since removed the space after the * but want to make sure that was
the problem.
Yes.
Any spams that make it past because they're not showing up in SURBL, I
report to SpamCop.net so that they eventually will be on a list. Can
anyone recommend other ways of actively reporting non-BL'd spams?
The time I spend doing this will benefit others. Spending time on a
customized rule only wor
These guys jumped on many radars last week. There are a lot of eyes on them
right now. I'm trying to get domains added as quick as possible for them.
They tend to do weekend runs. There are also a few obscure patterns that
the Ninjas are looking at for rules.
More research I can't discuss.
--C
Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 2/19/2005 5:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Trying to install sa 3.0.2 I find that make test for 3.0.1 or 3.0.2 fails
on Suse 9.0 systems which got the recent security updates (Feb. 10 or so)
for Perl and Perl-DBI.
Anyone else experiences the same problem?
Yes, I
On 2/19/2005 5:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Trying to install sa 3.0.2 I find that make test for 3.0.1 or 3.0.2 fails
> on Suse 9.0 systems which got the recent security updates (Feb. 10 or so)
> for Perl and Perl-DBI.
> Anyone else experiences the same problem?
Yes, I had a fair number of mod
Top posting because of my lame UA.
Actually we've done a little research on this. While I won't go into detail,
I'll just say that while they could do a diff, they don't.
The one good thing about spammers is, There is no honor among thieves. ;)
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: Geor
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 08:33:10PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
>
>I have updated the RDJ snippet for uri.cf to point to the new uri0.cf
>file, and added snippets for the other files as well. I believe I've
>done this correctly, but as I don't use and cannot test RDJ, I can't
>be sure.
I'm overl
This weekend I had several email hit as whitelisted which are clearly not.
Would the following line cause all emails to be whitelisted?
whitelist_from * @domain.com
I have since removed the space after the * but want to make sure that was the
problem.
Thanks
Bryan
---
Try these on for size:
header __PORN_WORD01 Subject =~/n(?:ex|xe)t door/i
header __PORN_WORD02 Subject =~/puss(?:y|ies)/i
header __PORN_WORD04 Subject =~/(?:needs|for)
m(?:one|oen|neo|noe|eno|eon)y/i
header __PORN_WORD05 Subject =~/h(?:orn|onr|nro|nor|ron|rno)y/i
header __PORN_WORD06
I made a few custom rules looking for intentional misspellings of certain
subject words. We use Bayes, so of course the misspellings are soon recognized
that way too.
The rules I made are based on the observation that the first and last letters
of these obfuscated words are left alone to make
On Monday, February 21, 2005, 5:27:36 AM, Richard Gray wrote:
> I have this same SPAM regularly occuring in our network, and frequently
> the domain has yet to be listed in the SURBL lists.
> I have yet to find another effective way of catching this other than
> writing a long list of rules to mat
I have this same SPAM regularly occuring in our network, and frequently
the domain has yet to be listed in the SURBL lists.
I have yet to find another effective way of catching this other than
writing a long list of rules to match the varying subject lines
-Original Message-
From: Jeff C
Hello,
Is there a way to know the addresses listed in the auto-whitelist file ?
How can I manage this file ?
Thanks for your answer
Alex
Score from 3.0.0 without any custom rules:
Content analysis details: (12.9 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
2.2 TO_MALFORMED To: has a malformed address
0.0 BAYES_50 BO
On Monday, February 21, 2005, 4:45:38 AM, Daniel Araujo wrote:
> Hi, guys. We are receiving a lot of kind these spams below. I couldnt
> discover a way to block them because there are o lot of types and
> combinations. Does someone is having the same problem ? Any ideas to block
> it ?
> -Men
Hi, guys. We are receiving a lot of kind these spams
below. I couldnt discover a way to block them because there are o lot of types
and combinations. Does someone is having the same problem ? Any ideas to block
it ?
Ps. I dont use
bayes.
Thanks a
lot,
Daniel.
-Mensagem
original
These are the rules I have:
31854 jun 1 2004 70_sare_adult.cf
3927 apr 24 2004 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf
85658 jan 28 07:23 70_sare_genlsubj0.cf
70561 jan 28 07:23 70_sare_genlsubj1.cf
107315 feb 12 23:35 70_sare_header0.cf
75276 feb 12 23:35 70_sare_header1.cf
32960 sep 13 02:23
We currently use the quarantine features of MailSweeper, and use SA for
the spamfiltering (mail me privately if you really need to know how this
is done)
After countless phone calls to ClearSwift regarding a wide range of
problems, I can say with confidence that unless you get through to the 1
guy
Hi
well I used MimeSweeper/Sophos about 18 months and dropped it in favour
of SA/MailScanner/Sophos/ClamAV/mailWatch.
why?
1. was using 4.2 and the upgrade to 4.3 was - uninstall and reinstall,
given i have lots of custom policies (rules) this was not an option. The
upgrade option wasn't very
Still setting up
spamassassin. I've got it running and auto learning is enabled. It's
been running all yesterday and over night. I can see it has tried to auto
learn a lot of ham/spam and I've fed it a load of spam as well. Bayes
doesn't seem to have kicked in though and if I do a sa-lea
On Sunday, February 20, 2005, 11:23:33 AM, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
> At my day job, our sysadmins have been using SpamAssassin for over a
> year. I'm not sure they feed it ham/spam as needed to keep the
> accuracy up to snuff -- I don't know if it's configured to use
> block-lists. It blocks offensive
30 matches
Mail list logo
