I must have received this spam 12 times or more in the last 24 hours and
even though its listed on the SURBL, spamassassin fails to match it against
them.
When I submit the spams to spamcop it parses the url everytime.
SURBL seems to work on all other spams, just wondering if they have found a
way
From: "Kris Deugau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The only (default) negative rules remaining are for Bayes (varies
> per-system, and often per-user), BondedSender/Habeas/HashCash (sender
> posts a bond with $company, and if they're found to have spammed, they
> lose that bond - details vary), ALL_TRUSTED
From: "Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reason that I ask is because I'm wondering whether whitelisting is
really a good idea. It seems like every article in the world on spam filters
says, "a product MUST allow for whitelisting senders or it is no good".
>
> However:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:04 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Spamassassin Tagging
>
> Jon Dossey wrote:
> >> Still having problems.
> >>
> >> Redhat FC2, sendmail 8.31.1, spamassassin 3.0.
Jon Dossey wrote:
>> Still having problems.
>>
>> Redhat FC2, sendmail 8.31.1, spamassassin 3.0.1 (with
>> spamass-milter).
>>
>> Messages are coming in with scores > 5.0 and aren't being tagged.
> Ok, I changed the required_hits to required_score (even though it
> shouldn't matter) and its stil
> Still having problems.
>
> Redhat FC2, sendmail 8.31.1, spamassassin 3.0.1 (with spamass-milter).
>
> Messages are coming in with scores > 5.0 and aren't being tagged.
>
> Here's my local.cf:
> #
> required_score 5
> rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
> report_safe 1
> trusted_networks 10.1
> # loc
On Friday, March 4, 2005, 2:05:52 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> They also removed the name of the company where I work (IronPort), which
> struck me as a bit odd considering how my job allows me to do open
> source was part of the article. I think my employer deserves some kudos
> for that.
Probabl
Title: Spamd stops responding...???
Thanks,
I am running 10 and have tried going with more as
well as less. Last weekend I added another processor so it is now running
2-PIII 1Gig processors. This didn't help though. I'm not running any
custom rules but do have a shared AWL as well as sh
"Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quinlan: Any technique that tries to identify "good" mail without
> authentication backing it up, or some form of personalized
> training. It worked well for a while, but it's definitely not an
> effective technique today.
Let me reph
Title: Spamd stops responding...???
Sure it could. How many
spamd processes do you have running? How much time is each taking?
What do your custom rulesets look like? What's the CPU speed? These
are all factors. If you have a bunch of machines hitting the same box and
there are a bu
At 03:18 PM 3/4/2005, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Is there a way to force a spamd child to abort and return a message
unprocessed after...
a) a certain amount of cpu time.
b) a certain amount of realtime (60 seconds?)
MailScanner calls SA at the API layer attempts to do b), unfortunately,
t
"Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems)" wrote:
> Quinlan: Any technique that tries to identify "good" mail without
> authentication backing it up, or some form of personalized training.
> It worked well for a while, but it's definitely not an effective
> technique today.
>
> Is he referring to a system w
Is there a way to force a spamd child to abort and return a message
unprocessed after...
a) a certain amount of cpu time.
b) a certain amount of realtime (60 seconds?)
I've had a couple of "spamd child" processes drive my load average through
the roof, force sendmail to shut down, and screw thin
mw wrote:
What should I do in order to see mail with the header autolearn=spam ?
I've prepared script which makes my own spams and sends them to my mail
server.
This server is placed in local net, not in Internet because I'm only testing
SpamAssassin.
I've sent more than 500 spams, but I didn't see
Quinlan: Any technique that tries to identify "good" mail without
authentication backing it up, or some form of personalized training. It worked
well for a while, but it's definitely not an effective technique today.
Is he referring to a system which might assume all mail is spam unless "proven"
All,
I have a problem that started when I went to SpamAssassin 3.0.
I have a dedicated server that runs spamd. I have about 6 servers that
connect to this server via spamc. At various times, spamd will literally
stop processing new connections. If I do a ps ax, I can see all the spamd
child
At 12:04 PM 3/4/2005, Matthew Newton wrote:
OK, thanks. I still have problems exactly understanding the difference
between trusted_networks and internal_networks is, though. My
understanding is that trusted_networks is our entire ip address range,
all hosts (143.210.0.0/16), and internal_networks i
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:23:10PM -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Matthew Newton wrote:
> >OK, thanks. I still have problems exactly understanding the difference
> >between trusted_networks and internal_networks is, though. My
> >understanding is that trusted_networks is our entire ip address r
Sandy S wrote:
This looks like another "reserved IP" issue, as discussed in this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general/62078
If you look at the original received header, it shows an IP address of
71.8.202.198, which spamassassin sees as a reserved, and thus trusted, I
Matthew Newton wrote:
OK, thanks. I still have problems exactly understanding the difference
between trusted_networks and internal_networks is, though. My
understanding is that trusted_networks is our entire ip address range,
all hosts (143.210.0.0/16), and internal_networks is mail servers that
we
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:07:46AM -0600, Sandy S wrote:
> This looks like another "reserved IP" issue, as discussed in this thread:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general/62078
>
> If you look at the original received header, it shows an IP address of
> 71.8.202.198, which
- Original Message -
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Matthew Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: ALL_TRUSTED rule hit, but haven't set any trusted networks
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> > A
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:57:37AM -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> >At 10:23 AM 3/4/2005, Matthew Newton wrote:
> >
> >>Just had a spam arrive that was given a -3.3 score for "ALL_TRUSTED".
> >>Funny thing is that my local.cf contains the following:
> >>
> >> # we trust ou
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 10:23 AM 3/4/2005, Matthew Newton wrote:
Just had a spam arrive that was given a -3.3 score for "ALL_TRUSTED".
Funny thing is that my local.cf contains the following:
# we trust our local network
# removed: sa never used for internal originating spam.
clear_trusted_netw
At 10:23 AM 3/4/2005, Matthew Newton wrote:
Just had a spam arrive that was given a -3.3 score for "ALL_TRUSTED".
Funny thing is that my local.cf contains the following:
# we trust our local network
# removed: sa never used for internal originating spam.
clear_trusted_networks
#trusted_netw
>Good interview with Daniel Quinlan about SA:
>
> http://www.osdir.com/Article4419.phtml
>
>Especially:
>
>> OSDir.com: What's the most effective anti-spam technology that
>> SpamAssassin uses right now?
>>
>> Quinlan: I think network rules are the most effective single
>> technology, in partic
Hi,
Sorry if this has been mentioned before. I seem to remember that it
might have been, but I can't find it.
Just had a spam arrive that was given a -3.3 score for "ALL_TRUSTED".
Funny thing is that my local.cf contains the following:
# we trust our local network
# removed: sa never used fo
Still having problems.
Redhat FC2, sendmail 8.31.1, spamassassin 3.0.1 (with spamass-milter).
Messages are coming in with scores > 5.0 and aren't being tagged.
Here's my local.cf:
#
required_score 5
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
report_safe 1
trusted_networks 10.1
# lock_method flock
score
Shane Williams wrote:
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 o
Matt Kettler wrote:
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
mw wrote:
As you can see above, the spam should gain min. 3 points from the header and
min. 3 points
from the body ( these are spamassassin needs to classify mail as spam ).
Apart from this, in local.cf I've bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 7.0,
however autolearning
doesn't work properly.
SpamAssas
mw wrote:
What should I do in order to see mail with the header autolearn=spam ?
I've prepared script which makes my own spams and sends them to my mail
server.
This server is placed in local net, not in Internet because I'm only testing
SpamAssassin.
I've sent more than 500 spams, but I didn't see
What should I do in order to see mail with the header autolearn=spam ?
I've prepared script which makes my own spams and sends them to my mail
server.
This server is placed in local net, not in Internet because I'm only testing
SpamAssassin.
I've sent more than 500 spams, but I didn't see autolearn
On Thursday, March 3, 2005, 8:51:40 AM, David Velásquez wrote:
> 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
spamd[29973]: Attempt to free unreferenced scalar at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SPF.pm line 207,
line 48.
Never seen it before and have been running SA3 for a while now.
==John ffitch
Good interview with Daniel Quinlan about SA:
http://www.osdir.com/Article4419.phtml
Especially:
> OSDir.com: What's the most effective anti-spam technology that
> SpamAssassin uses right now?
>
> Quinlan: I think network rules are the most effective single
> technology, in particular, the UR
List Mail User wrote:
You also have the problem of dealing with IP literals, and users
running dynamic DNS which still has stale DNS data (so the response should
be a 4xx code not a 5xx code, if you do something like this).
I think anyone who is running a mail server on a dynamic IP has to
Jon McGreevy wrote:
Tried both of those and not successful, anymore ideas
Why are you processing outgoing mail? How are you calling SpamAssassin?
I would look at bypassing SA for outgoing mail.
Steven
38 matches
Mail list logo
