Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
Is there a test that one can construct that would
assign a weight to a message that is missing
a certain header, completely? In my case, no Subject
line at all.
From the default ruleset for 3.x:
header __HAS_SUBJECT exists:Subject
meta MISSING_SUBJECT
Is there a test that one can construct that would
assign a weight to a message that is missing
a certain header, completely? In my case, no Subject
line at all.
--
Quist ConsultingEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea DriveVoice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1
List Mail User wrote:
In other words, lowercase is conformant. and your first point is
not correct (though all the examples do show uppercase). However, you are
completely correct that the "helo=" is flat out wrong,
why? it's inside a comment, no?
but with a slight
variation, and it becom
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:33:16PM -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:25:53PM -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:11:27PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > > Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> > > >spamassassin -D -p --lint doesn't show any pro
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:25:53PM -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:11:27PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> > >spamassassin -D -p --lint doesn't show any problems that I
> > >can see.
> > >if I run:
> > >sa-learn --showdots --mbox --ha
Vicki Brown wrote on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:00:59 -0800:
> Okaaay. Help me out here, please? "If network tests are enabled"?
> I change essentially nothing from the defaults.
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL is loaded in init.pre.
> Net::DNS is up to date.
> But as I'm apparently not using
Hi,
On my SA Gateway, I have no local box except root. Should I forward
HAM/SPAM to local box? Mail are not meant for local delivery here.
Regards,
Norman Zhang
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:33:21PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> I'm getting errors building the rpm on x86_64:
Yeah, we haven't quite worked that out yet. Things are being linked against
things they shouldn't be. :(
For the time being, you can apply the patch attached to bug 4090:
http://bugzilla.
I'm getting errors building the rpm on x86_64:
Manifying blib/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::Bayes.3pm
Manifying blib/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::RelayCountry.3pm
+ /usr/bin/make spamc/libspamc.so
/usr/bin/make -f spamc/Makefile spamc/libspamc.so
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/M
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...and if you can, avoid using running messages to the list through SA
(easy to do if you're using procmail, not so easy in other cases).
or run them through with "whitelist_from_rcvd *.* apache.org" to pad the
value so that it doesn't matter
I do wish that postfix woul
At 20:48 -0800 03/15/2005, Jeff Chan wrote:
>Yes, please see URIDNSBL and SURBL:
>
>
>http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm
> http://www.surbl.org/
>
>which are built into SpamAssassin 3 and enabled by default if
>network tests are enabled.
Okaaa
Justin!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) wrote on 16.03.05 21:46:>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE->Hash: SHA1>>>I would suggest running with -D and monitoring spamd memory size>as it starts up. Something is causing it to balloon to massive>sizes after startup.
nothing special during startup; it
>
>This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it down. No real mailto URI
>unless there is some translation going on with email addresses embedded in the
>body by the email client on send. At first, I just thought it might be a bug
>since the messages were using ISO-2022-JP character se
List Mail User wrote:
P.S. Could whomever maintains this list please try to settle on one format
for the list's name - today's messages are using
SpamAssassin Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
a couple of days ago the format changed to:
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] apache. org"
and I already have to special
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Am 16.03.2005 um 08:55 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
> > Am 16.03.2005 um 00:31 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:27:28AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> > > > Are there problems with mail heade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bobby, could you open a bug in the bugzilla about this? URI rules
should not be checking mailto links.
- --j.
Jeff Chan writes:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 5:47:40 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
> > This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would suggest running with -D and monitoring spamd memory size
as it starts up. Something is causing it to balloon to massive
sizes after startup.
Presumably you are limiting the size of the messages sent in for scanning,
as recommended in the do
>To: Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: SpamAssassin Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Is this Received header correctly formatted?
>
>
>Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Received: from ar39.lsanca2-4.16.241.28.lsanca2.elnk.dsl.genuity.net
>> ([4.16.241.28] helo=watson1)
>> by pop-a065d23.pas
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:11:27PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> >spamassassin -D -p --lint doesn't show any problems that I
> >can see.
> >if I run:
> >sa-learn --showdots --mbox --ham -p
> >/opt/MailScanner/etc/spam.assassin.prefs.conf
> >sa-learn just hangs. Sam
>...
>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:38:13 - (GMT)
>Subject: Re: Is there such a test?
>From: "Mike Spamassassin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I'd take that bet.
>While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
>subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
>out ther
Mike Spamassassin wrote:
I'd take that bet.
While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
out there in [EMAIL PROTECTED] land, and hotmail world, most people have a single
email address strongly related to their
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 9:02:44 AM, Stuart Johnston wrote:
SURBLs have them... most of the time... eventually... Er, yeah.
Just to check, are you using ob.surbl.org and jp.surbl.org
in multi.surbl.org, i.e.:
In the last ~24 hours:
All SA > 5: 32540
*_SURBL:22361 (69%
I had that happen once before, but it was an earlier version of the
Bayes DB, and it was because my database was hosed.
>>> Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/15/2005 6:01 PM >>>
Hello,
I'm using spamassassin 3.0.2 from within MailScanner 4.39.6 on Debian
woody. After upgrading to spamas
Alright, I'm developing such a test.
For American/Anglo-Sexon names, it will do random comparason with the
Webster Dictionary for FLast, FirshL, First.Last Last.F, Last.First
and spell check them all.
For Indian names, it will search the Yahoo movie Database.
For French Names, we will append "Freed
Mike Spamassassin wrote:
I'd take that bet.
While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
out there in [EMAIL PROTECTED] land, and hotmail world, most people have a
single
email address strongly related to their
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 5:47:40 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
> This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it down. No
> real mailto URI unless there is some translation going on with
> email addresses embedded in the body by the email client on send. At
> first, I just thought it might be
This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it down. No real mailto URI
(Bunless there is some translation going on with email addresses embedded in the
(Bbody by the email client on send. At first, I just thought it might be a bug
(Bsince the messages were using ISO-2022-JP character
Am 16.03.2005 um 08:55 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
> Am 16.03.2005 um 00:31 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:27:28AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Are there problems with mail header identification?
> > > Am I in the wrong list with this question?
> > > > Mar 13 01
Greg,
i have
use_auto_whitelist 0
in the local.cf
But thanks anyway
Wolfgang
"Greg Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 16.03.2005 13:54:24:
> Some users have had problems with corrupt AWL database after upgrade of
> Spamassassin. Try disabling AWL to see if that is your issue.
>
> -Orig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Greg,
> Some users have had problems with corrupt AWL database after upgrade of
> Spamassassin. Try disabling AWL to see if that is your issue.
I'm totally new to the list and I don't know 3.0.2 so I'm not sure how
helpful this is goin
Some users have had problems with corrupt AWL database after upgrade of
Spamassassin. Try disabling AWL to see if that is your issue.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Su
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 3:55:52 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
> I figured out the problem, it' was the an individuals email address in
> the message body (even though not a mailto). Their email domain isn't
> listed at spamhaus.org but it turns out one of their ISPs DNS servers
> are which they ar
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 05:09, John Andersen wrote:
> On Saturday 12 March 2005 02:47 pm, jdow wrote:
> > The canonical way to do it is something like:
> >
> > rewrite_header Subject *SPAM* _SCORE(00)_ **
> >
> > That gives headers that look like:
> > Subject: *SPAM* 027.3 ** spoo
I figured out the problem, it' was the an individuals email address in
the message body (even though not a mailto). Their email domain isn't
listed at spamhaus.org but it turns out one of their ISPs DNS servers
are which they are using as secondary. This makes the second time I've
come across t
Hi
when running spamd with 'spamd -D -q' the SQL statement 'SELECT
preference,value FROM sa_prefs WHERE username=_USERNAME_ OR
username='$GLOBAL' OR username=CONCAT('%',_USERNAME_) ORDER BY
username ASC' and testing from shell with 'echo -e "From:
user\nTo:user\Subject: Test\n\n" | spamc -u '$GLOB
Dear collegues,
I'm having still extrem problems with memory and cpu consumation of SA
3.0.2 spamd;
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ Command
19098 exim 30 5 399m 398m 34m R 99.7 65.8 1:37.47 spamd
19121 exim 20 5 111m 111m 34m S 0.7 4.4 0:20.78 sp
List Mail User wrote:
the "with" is sometimes also either a "by" or "via" (and probably
other string values which I haven't noticed). BTW.
"by" "via" and "with" are separate sub-fields with their own meaning
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core
Loren Wilton wrote:
Received: from ar39.lsanca2-4.16.241.28.lsanca2.elnk.dsl.genuity.net
([4.16.241.28] helo=watson1)
by pop-a065d23.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 1DBKRe-Kp-00; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:23:22 -0800
1) Is "stmp" in lower case valid, or should it have been STMP?
2)
I'd take that bet.
While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
out there in [EMAIL PROTECTED] land, and hotmail world, most people have a
single
email address strongly related to their name.
Back to the origi
Am 16.03.2005 um 00:31 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:27:28AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Are there problems with mail header identification?
> > Am I in the wrong list with this question?
> > > Mar 13 01:16:18 ns spamd[28893]: processing message
> > > <[EMAIL PROTE
I got the ldapBlick plug-in pretty much finished, and it just needs some
polishing I think.
I'd like to get some help testing this for load and latency, so if
anybody has a local LDAP server running already and is pretty
comfortable with SA and LDAP, and is willing to poke at this, let me
know
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 9:27:50 PM, Vicki Brown wrote:
> Does anyone else find this just too absurdly silly for words?
> Although I guess it surely does prove the point Jeff Chan made for URIDNSBL
> and SURBL - most eloquently in fact :-)
>>SpamAssassin, running on "mail.dailyhills.com", has
Does anyone else find this just too absurdly silly for words?
Although I guess it surely does prove the point Jeff Chan made for URIDNSBL
and SURBL - most eloquently in fact :-)
>SpamAssassin, running on "mail.dailyhills.com", has identified this incoming
>email as possible spam. The original me
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 7:13:04 PM, Vicki Brown wrote:
> I've been going through a bunch of spam and blacklisting domains. However,
> some of the more frequent offenders are in the body of the message. For
> example, today I found about half a dozen porno spams that contained a
> reference to
>
I've been going through a bunch of spam and blacklisting domains. However,
some of the more frequent offenders are in the body of the message. For
example, today I found about half a dozen porno spams that contained a
reference to
http://www.a123s.biz/...
I can do a body match rule.
Is there a
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 9:02:44 AM, Stuart Johnston wrote:
> SURBLs have them... most of the time... eventually... Er, yeah.
Just to check, are you using ob.surbl.org and jp.surbl.org
in multi.surbl.org, i.e.:
urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org.A 64
body URIBL_JP_SURBL
List Mail User wrote:
Unfortunately even the "quotes", while typical, are optional; I have
lots of examples of both ham and spam without the quotes. The rule is that
everything from the ':' up to the '<' is the description (and nearly anything
is "legal"). To show examples, here is an example fr
>...
>From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Is there such a test?
>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:39:32 -0800
>...
>> I have just received spam from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Is there a test which identifies that the description (Esmeralada
>> Bouchard
>From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Is this Received header correctly formatted?
>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:36:36 -0800
>...
>
>Received: from ar39.lsanca2-4.16.241.28.lsanca2.elnk.dsl.genuity.net
>([4.16.241.28] helo=watson1)
> by pop-a065d23.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.
>...
>Point taken, but I still think it would be a valid test.
>Like all SpamAssassin tests it should only be one of many indicators.
>In particular all the ones that I receive I would expect to have "Mike" or
>"Michael" in the description of my email address.
>I would also like to be able to pick
>
>At 10:00 AM 3/15/2005, Mike Spamassassin wrote:
>>I have just received spam from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Is there a test which identifies that the description (Esmeralada
>>Bouchard) bears no resemblance to the given sender's address?
>
>No.. It's quite common for normal people to have that.
>
>For
Rose, Bobby wrote:
I have a user that is of Japanese origin and who converses with other
individuals in Japan in his same field of study. The messages they send
are in Japanese and trip the URI_SBL rule. These people are in
different .jp domains and I really don't want to get into the
administrat
52 matches
Mail list logo
