user to user post (I am not a developer)
Are you using DCC, Pyzor or any RBLs on the front end or any custom
SpamAssassin RBL rules? Maybe that would help you on these types. Much of
the power of SA is it's ability to check outside sources such as these, so
you don't have to rely 100% on just text
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:53:58PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>At 04:40 PM 3/3/2005, George Georgalis wrote:
>>This log entry indicates when I booted into 2.6.11:
>>2005-03-02 12:05:47.018334500 2005-03-02 17:05:47 [781] i: server killed
>>by SIGTERM, shutting down
>
>Is there any chance you're ru
I look at the code and it sure seemed to use both trust and internal
to me (I looked at 3.0.2, but tested on 3.0.1).
So I constructed a small example from you headers; I used as input:
Return-Path: <[E
At 04:40 PM 3/3/2005, George Georgalis wrote:
This log entry indicates when I booted into 2.6.11:
2005-03-02 12:05:47.018334500 2005-03-02 17:05:47 [781] i: server killed
by SIGTERM, shutting down
Is there any chance you're running out of memory and the OOM killer is
kicking in and sending SIGTER
I suspect this error is being caused by SpamCop reporting, not razor.
As a test, try reporting a message that's two weeks old and see if
the error message changes/goes away.
For me, the "Insecure dependency" message goes away and is "replaced"
by a message to the effect that older mails won't be re
Is anyone successfully runing SA on a 2.6.11 linux kernel?
>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:16:03 -0500, George Georgalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm very defiantly seeing a problem with the 2.6.11
>> kernel and my spamassassin setup. However, it's not
>> clear exactly where the problem is, seems like
Shane,
Your example *is* much better. What you are showing, if my
assumptions are correct (I list them below) is everything working
exactly as it is designed to - i.e. both IMP and SA are doing the
correct things.
1) I assume that the receiving host "mail.ischool.utexas.edu" is a
At 02:52 PM 3/3/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote:
Insecure dependency in connect while running with -T switch at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/IO/Socket.pm line 114.
I have read trough the wiki and found something similar but related to
razor and SA 2.6 with a patch, but I have no
Hello,
I have a little problem reporting spam with sa,
I got this error message wen reporting:
% spamassassin -D -r spam
[...]
Insecure dependency in connect while running with -T switch at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/IO/Socket.pm line 114.
I have read trough the wiki and found s
Sigh,
Paul,
Do me a favor, go look at the SA code and see what "HELO_DYNAMIC_ATTBI"
is all about. Note that it is looking at the 'X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted'
meta-data thus SA already knows that client is untrusted, so it is NOT
a trusted_networks issue at all. So hacking the trust settings
will do N
Perfect!
Thanks!!!
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:10 PM
To: Steve Dimoff; Spamassassin-Users
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: SA Rule - Matching on "From" AND "Subject"
At 01:52 PM 3/3/2005, Steve Dimoff wrote:
>
At 01:52 PM 3/3/2005, Steve Dimoff wrote:
I'm running SA 2.63, and I have a rule I would like to create that
would only be a positive number/match if two checks both were matched.
I don't want one rule checking "To" and another checking "Subject", I want
to combine to the two rules so that
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:52:53PM -0500, Steve Dimoff wrote:
> I don't want one rule checking "To" and another checking "Subject", I want
> to combine to the two rules so that if "To" and "Subject" both match
> something then to give it a positive score.
RTFM for "meta" rules. :)
--
Randomly Ge
Hello,
I'm running SA 2.63, and I have a rule I would like to create that
would only be a positive number/match if two checks both were matched.
I don't want one rule checking "To" and another checking "Subject", I want
to combine to the two rules so that if "To" and "Subject" both match
All,
I have a problem where, several times a day, all the spamd child processes
will hang waiting to lock the /path/to/auto-whitelist. I'm trying to narrow
down what is causing this but have found nothing yet.
The partition is running on ext3.
Any thoughts?
TIA
At 05:20 AM 3/3/2005, Sven Hergenhahn wrote:
I run spamassassin 3.0.2 as user spamfilter,
the command is:
/usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs --max-children 5 --helper-home-dir -u
spamfilter --nouser-config -d --pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
I keep my whitelist_from lines in
/home/spamfilter/.spamassass
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:49:36AM -0500, D.J. wrote:
> that don't get scored at all on known working servers. I'll see in
> the headers that SA attempted to do something with the message, but
> for whatever reason ignored it and adds a line to the header that has
Actually, SA hasn't attempted to
At 11:51 AM 3/3/2005, David Velásquez wrote:
Also I think bayes it´s useless... the same email is considered spam and a
second later is considered ham.
Bayes is only as good as it's training.. if you've got wild flip-flops like
that, perhaps you need to look at what's going on in your autolearnin
At 11:17 AM 3/3/2005, Jon McGreevy wrote:
I am kind of new to this, I use SAConf to change my rules, so how do I run
spamassassin -tD
That's a command line program, not a configuration option. It's a way of
actually starting spamassassin from the command line with the "test mode"
and "debug outpu
Let me make it clear that I'm not convinced yet where the "problem"
really lies. IMP's Received header seems deceptively "real", but for
all I know this meets (or at least doesn't contradict) some RFC. On
the other hand even if the problem should be fixed by the IMP devs, it
may be easier to "fix
Also I think bayes it´s useless... the same email is considered spam and a
second later is considered ham.
How can I report this stuff so it can be included in some SA rules? I think
that maintain personal rules it´s not good for fight spammers as a group
(i.e. SA users).
-
Nick Leverton wrote:
> Outlook 2003 (I think, some M$ MUA anyway) was changed to not add a
> Message-Id, on the assumption that Exchange would.
I have no trouble with MUA clients not adding a message-id. My
prefered mail client mutt does not either. It is added by the first
MTA. I and I believe
> I know you don't like bayes, but it is the best single
>tool for stock
>scams. The trouble with counting '|' is the frequency of
>transcribed spead-
>sheets would give too many FPs (typical is to use '|' to
>separate the columns).
>Most scock scams use non-obfucated words to look legiti
"Jon McGreevy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 03/03/2005 10:12:56 AM:
> Tried both of those and not successful, anymore ideas
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gray, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache
"Jon McGreevy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 03/03/2005 10:13:31 AM:
> IP won't really work since most people webmail from all over
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: users@spama
I am kind of new to this, I use SAConf to change my rules, so how do I run
spamassassin -tD
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem with a Rule
At 10:
IP won't really work since most people webmail from all over
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem with a Rule
Jon
doing it this way will giv
>
>Jon McGreevy wrote:
>> I am running SA 2.64 and trying to create a rule so that
>peoples email
>> inside the organization will not be marked as spam
>>
>> I am trying to use the header option and it is not working
>>
>> Here is what I have so far
>>
>> From =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/I
>>
>> My
Tried both of those and not successful, anymore ideas
-Original Message-
From: Gray, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Problem with a Rule
Use
header LOCAL_MAIL From =~ /[EMAIL PR
"Gray, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 03/03/2005 10:03:16 AM:
> Use
>
> header LOCAL_MAIL From =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/I
>
> Alternatively
>
> whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This is generally not considered a good idea tho, because these headers
> are very easy to forge. (viruses
Jon
doing it this way will give problems when the spammers fake the senders
to be 'from' your domain. This is quite a popular trick.
I use MailScanner as my driver for SA and with that I can check which ip
the email came from. If it's on my network I don't run SA.
There's prob a way to build a
Use
header LOCAL_MAIL From =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/I
Alternatively
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is generally not considered a good idea tho, because these headers
are very easy to forge. (viruses tend to masquarade as
internal->internal mail)
R
-Original Message-
From: Jon Mc
At 10:51 AM 3/3/2005, Jon McGreevy wrote:
I am running SA 2.64 and trying to create a rule so that peoples email
inside the organization will not be marked as spam
I am trying to use the header option and it is not working
Here is what I have so far
From =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/I
My organization is @
I am running SA 2.64 and trying to create a rule so that peoples email
inside the organization will not be marked as spam
I am trying to use the header option and it is not working
Here is what I have so far
>From =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/I
My organization is @waterloo.k12.ia.us
I have tried all
At 07:40 AM 3/3/2005, you wrote:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at apache.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Try
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at apache.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Original Message
>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:16:03 -0500, George Georgalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm very defiantly seeing a problem with the 2.6.11
>> kernel and my spamassassin setup. However, it's not
>> clear exactly where the problem is, seems like sa
>> but it might be 2.6.11 with daemontools + qmail +
>>
At 07:34 AM 3/3/2005, you wrote:
Hi i wan't to unsubscribe from this list, but no of the option below
working?
So what happens when you try to unsubscribe?
Hi i wan't to unsubscribe from this list, but no of the option below
working?
Thanx Peter
Original Message
Subject: WELCOME to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (16-Jun-2004 11:45)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
> [EMAIL
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:55:51 +0100, Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/3/2005 3:49 PM +0100, D.J. wrote:
> > Hello all. I've for some time been occasionally receving messages
> > that don't get scored at all on known working servers. I'll see in
> > the headers that SA attempted to do somethi
On 3/3/2005 3:49 PM +0100, D.J. wrote:
Hello all. I've for some time been occasionally receving messages
that don't get scored at all on known working servers. I'll see in
the headers that SA attempted to do something with the message, but
for whatever reason ignored it and adds a line to the hea
Hello all. I've for some time been occasionally receving messages
that don't get scored at all on known working servers. I'll see in
the headers that SA attempted to do something with the message, but
for whatever reason ignored it and adds a line to the header that has
something like SA: (?/?).
Dave,
You have a few valid points, and the rule may be misnamed with
HELO at its prefix; But look at some email coming from the free services
like Yahoo!, Hotmail or Gmail and you will see HTTP (as well as other
protocols; Hotmail/MSN also uses both of the MS proprietary protocols
Hi All,
I have the following problem (and it only occurs since I mistakenly upgraded
spamassassin in Debian unstable and overwrote the config...)
I run spamassassin 3.0.2 as user spamfilter,
the command is:
/usr/sbin/spamd --create-prefs --max-children 5 --helper-home-dir -u
spamfilter --nou
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> Shane Williams writes:
> > I noticed the HELO_DYNAMIC_* thread and the conclusion that IMP adding
> > a Received header may be a source of problems.
>
> I think the problem is being caused by IMP being "too good" at
> generating a Received header that looks
Tracey
you should be able to see that rules being hit in the report header.
you can test messages by using spamassassin at the command line
spamassassin message
if spamassassin -D message for terse output/
I run alot extra as well, some don't get many hits anymore, but they do
occassionally and I
I'm very defiantly seeing a problem with the 2.6.11
kernel and my spamassassin setup. However, it's not
clear exactly where the problem is, seems like sa
but it might be 2.6.11 with daemontools + qmail +
QMAIL_QUEUE.
I don't really have time to break down an analysis,
but I'm fairly certain. If an
User to user post... ( I am not a developer)
I can see where this my be something to consider 10 or 20 years from now
when we all have supercomputers in our pockets. :-)
But until then...
I would concentrate on implementing the latest Spamassassin 3.0.2
It is a bit of work to get it working cor
jdow wrote:
From: "Steven Stern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please keep replies on the list.
In my former job, we ran 50,000 messages/day through sendmail on a sparc
20. It chugged a little, but it handled it. I think a decent Xeon box
with a decent amount of memory could easily handle 50,000 messages p
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, List Mail User wrote:
> >...
> >I think the problem is being caused by IMP being "too good" at
> >generating a Received header that looks like a normal one added
> >by an MTA. Good enough to fool SpamAssassin into thinking it's
> >an SMTP one, anyway. ;)
> >
> >Could someone o
From: "Steven Stern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Please keep replies on the list.
>
> In my former job, we ran 50,000 messages/day through sendmail on a sparc
> 20. It chugged a little, but it handled it. I think a decent Xeon box
> with a decent amount of memory could easily handle 50,000 messages
Matt wrote:
Steven,
I run qmail in my environment but have used sendmail in the past...
can sendmail happily handle 500,000 messages a day? Say if I were to
JUST pass them through and send them on to my qmail server?
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:34:46 -0600, Steven Stern
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt
At 12:03 PM 3/2/2005, David B Funk wrote:
NO! NO!, Read the headers!
Note the "with HTTP" as the protocol.
That's somebody on a cable modem using a web browser, connecting to
a HORDE-IMP webmail server. So the webmail server is doing the
actual sending of the SMTP part, but it is adding that addit
53 matches
Mail list logo
