-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 08:57 PM 2/25/2005, jdow wrote:
>
> >Sometimes SA may time out. If it does there are no SA markups in the
> >messages. Makes it easy to test for.
>
> True, this can happen when using MailScanner..
>
> Although, as it turns
On Saturday 26 February 2005 03:50 pm, jdow wrote:
> Forwarding spam? Never do it. Almost never do. So on those once a month
> times I do forward the message I send it in the spamassassin wrapper.
>
> {^_^}
Thanks jdow, just for curiosity's sake, is it too much of a PITA to fwd to
various sites o
Hello Jeff,
Friday, February 25, 2005, 8:58:37 PM, you wrote:
JC> Just want to confirm that the current rules on the SARE site
JC> will work with both 2.64 and 3.X. I know it says so on their
JC> rules page, but wanted to double check. :-)
Yes, all current SARE rules files listed on the SARE r
Forwarding spam? Never do it. Almost never do. So on those once a month
times I do forward the message I send it in the spamassassin wrapper.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When forwarding spam, those of you who do it, do you leave the subject
intact,
> i
When forwarding spam, those of you who do it, do you leave the subject intact,
ie..*SPAM(35.2)* You've been selected for a low rate or do you change
the subject to something like "phishing msg attached" or "lottery scam msg"?
--
Chris
Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org
1
At 08:57 PM 2/25/2005, jdow wrote:
Sometimes SA may time out. If it does there are no SA markups in the
messages. Makes it easy to test for.
True, this can happen when using MailScanner..
Although, as it turns out, FN's aren't the poster's concern.
As for SA timeouts under MailScanner, they are usu
Just want to confirm that the current rules on the SARE site
will work with both 2.64 and 3.X. I know it says so on their
rules page, but wanted to double check. :-)
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.surbl.org/
I've built an Anti-Spam and Anti-Virus appliance that I've recently put
to market. If you have some suggestions on what makes an appliance
really soar above the rest, I'd love you hear about it.
Cheers,
J.
-Original Message-
From: Rob McEwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, F
> Anyone care to comment on how successful/effective this
> particular product is? (http://www.barracudanetworks.com)
A few months ago, I was chatting with an IT contractor guy in my city who
had installed the barracuda firewall for many large clients, including a
large hospital. I sent this guy a
Hello Richard,
Friday, February 25, 2005, 7:58:54 AM, you wrote:
GR> Anyone care to comment on how successful/effective this
GR> particular product is? (http://www.barracudanetworks.com)
I'm an end-user of an Exchange server based system that has a
Barracuda front-end, and also the email admin o
I'm using spamassassin with amavisd-new. I like to setup a path for
system wide bayes database in local.cf. e.g.,
bayes_path /var/amavisd/.spamassassin/bayes
# slocate bayes
/usr/share/spamassassin/23_bayes.cf
/usr/bin/amavisd-checkbayesdb
/var/lib/amavis/var/.spamassassin/bayes_toks
/var/lib/amavi
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Justin Mason wrote:
> So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
> but a constant flow of spam?
>
> That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
> user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
>
> - --j.
This
Sometimes SA may time out. If it does there are no SA markups in the
messages. Makes it easy to test for.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jerome Cartagena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: 2005 February, 25, Friday 16:14
Subject: Re: Strange SpamAssa
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin with amavisd-new. I like to setup a path for
system wide bayes database in local.cf. e.g.,
bayes_path /var/amavisd/.spamassassin/bayes
# slocate bayes
/usr/share/spamassassin/23_bayes.cf
/usr/bin/amavisd-checkbayesdb
/var/lib/amavis/var/.spamassassin/bayes_toks
/var/lib/a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
> > but a constant flow of spam?
> >
> > That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
> > user-to-user mail is
So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
but a
constant flow of spam?
That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
You know that is quite an excellent, refreshing, and logical
observati
Justin Mason wrote:
> So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
> but a constant flow of spam?
>
> That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
> user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
>
> - --j.
This causes one of my worries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours, but a
constant flow of spam?
That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
- --j.
Jerome Cartagena
That's MailScanner; I'm suggesting that if you look to see if it was
processed through SA or not (MS might be skipping if no processes are
available, or might be using the wrong queue, or any number of other
things could be going wrong).
On 2/25/2005 6:51 PM, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
> MailScanner
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 02:04 PM 2/25/2005, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
The main reason I believe this is a performance issue is the strange
flat line that is demonstrated by the graph. Although it concerns me
that I get much more HAM than SPAM (I believe current industry
standards report 80+% spam
20 matches
Mail list logo
