I am running a Directadmin server that uses Exim and Spamassassin 3.0.2
release. I would like to create two email addresses such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then I would
like to ask all our users to forward there ham or spam to these addresses
as an attachment. Then magically
Christopher Weimann wrote:
On 03/16/2005-04:49AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
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 -08
Justin Mason wrote:
I'd agree with Paul, what's the difference between doing the lookup of
the domain listed in a mailto: link and a http: link -- both of which
are often found in someone's signature?
Eliminating the mailto: domain lookup could lead to spam such as "email
us at [EMAIL PROTECTED
I am running a Directadmin server that uses Exim and Spamassassin 3.0.2
release. I would like to create two email addresses such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then I would like
to ask all our users to forward there ham or spam to these addresses as an
attachment. Then magically
On Thursday, March 17, 2005, 2:25:34 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
> Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
>> List Mail User wrote:
>> > Jeff,
>> >
>> > RFC 1630 make pretty clear that a email address in either a "mailto:";
>> > or "cid:"; clause *is* a URI. It does not address whether a bare email
>> >
Rose, Bobby wrote:
But in my test messages the email address wasn't in the form of a URI.
It was just the email address. I even used pine for a test to make sure
it was a gui client doing some reformatting business.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said URI. I had said URI since SpamAssassin
internally a
But in my test messages the email address wasn't in the form of a URI.
It was just the email address. I even used pine for a test to make sure
it was a gui client doing some reformatting business.
Do we know if it's possible to know if the results from SBL are for the
domain of the URI being quer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> List Mail User wrote:
> > Jeff,
> >
> > RFC 1630 make pretty clear that a email address in either a "mailto:";
> > or "cid:"; clause *is* a URI. It does not address whether a bare email
> > address
> > would cou
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:51:00PM -0600, Timothy Richter wrote:
> I have made whitelist_from exceptions and whitelist_to exceptions.
> Is it possible to make a exception in the whitelist file by subject?
> I am guessing it would be whitelist_subject .
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Whit
Good Afternoon,
I have made whitelist_from exceptions and whitelist_to exceptions. Is it
possible to make a exception in the whitelist file by subject? I am guessing
it would be whitelist_subject .
Thanks,
Tim
List Mail User wrote:
Jeff,
RFC 1630 make pretty clear that a email address in either a "mailto:";
or "cid:"; clause *is* a URI. It does not address whether a bare email address
would count (it seems that it doesn't fit the RFC definition, but does fit
some other I found by Goggle)
Jeff,
RFC 1630 make pretty clear that a email address in either a "mailto:";
or "cid:"; clause *is* a URI. It does not address whether a bare email address
would count (it seems that it doesn't fit the RFC definition, but does fit
some other I found by Goggle).
I could be
Loren,
While true for vdrugz.net-munged, gh6.net-munged does not always
use a www. prefix. Also, now gh6.net-munged is caught by the SBL, 4 SURBLs,
and completewhois (if you use it). I get 14.6 points for just the bare
domain name. vdrugz.net-munged is caught by the SBL and 4 SU
Hi!
gh6.net-munged, don't the SURBLs have this one yet? Another from
the taiwanmedialtd.com-munged group (two new domains a day - time for
Spamhaus to take notice; Also they seem to hace given up on the Turkish
address as on last week).
gh6 .net is listed in about every SURBL list. If you
gh6.net-munged, don't the SURBLs have this one yet? Another from
the taiwanmedialtd.com-munged group (two new domains a day - time for
Spamhaus to take notice; Also they seem to hace given up on the Turkish
address as on last week).
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Slightly off topic but does Sendmail 8.12 add a subject when one is not
present?
Matt Kettler wrote:
> 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
Hi Daryl, everyone,
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Paul Boven wrote:
My problem is that I have end-users that are basically claiming 'the
more I send to the relearn-address, the lower the Bayes score seems to
be getting.' The included headers seem to support that claim, so I
really want to dig a bit
>...
>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:29:43 +0100
>From: mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>...
>To: List Mail User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Is this Received header correctly formatted?
>...
>
>List Mail User wrote:
>
>> In other
Paul Boven wrote:
My problem is that I have end-users that are basically claiming 'the
more I send to the relearn-address, the lower the Bayes score seems to
be getting.' The included headers seem to support that claim, so I
really want to dig a bit deeper into the whole setup.
That there sounds
Alexander Piavka wrote:
Hi, any ideas why this happens in SA-3.0.2
Thanks
And when are you going to get a message from
users@spamassassin.apache.org that would match this rule? How did you
try to test it?
Keep in mind that posts on the list are addressed TO
users@spamassassin.apache.org, not
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:15:35PM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
> Hoi Eric,
> Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> >if I run:
> >sa-learn --showdots --mbox --ham -p
> >/opt/MailScanner/etc/spam.assassin.prefs.conf
> >sa-learn just hangs. Same happens for --spam.
> >strace shows it stuck on a read(0,
> The
Vicki Brown wrote:
Did the message you tested with
have a URI? If so what was it?
Sigh. :-(
No. I naively thought it would list something anyway.
Back to circle 1.
OK, so I ran it again against a message with lots of URIs (specifically one
of my previous messages which got pummeled by dailyhills
In sa 3.0+ they are base-64 encodings of the SHA1 hash of the token.
The hash is for all practical purposes not reversible.
Does this apply to Bayes/SQL too?
Yup.
mysql> select * from bayes_token limit 1;
++---++---++
| id | token | spam_count | ham_count
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:24:04AM +0200, Richard Mayhew wrote:
> We are running SA 3.02 with Bayes in a MySQL 4.1 DB. When trying to
> replicate the Bayes DB data to our slave DB's we receive errors
> regarding duplicate tokens.
>
> Anyone had this problem, and are you aware of it? Can this be re
> [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 header identification?
> > > > > Am I in
I was stupid enought to confuse whitelist_to with whitelist_from.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Alexander Piavka wrote:
>
> Hi, any ideas why this happens in SA-3.0.2
> Thanks
>
>
Hi, any ideas why this happens in SA-3.0.2
Thanks
junoyang juno wrote:
I had sent 3 messages to the spamassassin .
1. First test
score SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS 0
# This is result
spam : 28468
norma : 1532
2. Second test
score SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS 3.475
# This is result
spam : 28435
normal : 1565
Test result is more second test than spam of first test
I had sent 3 messages to the spamassassin .
1. First test
score SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS 0
# This is result
spam : 28468
norma : 1532
2. Second test
score SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS 3.475
# This is result
spam : 28435
normal : 1565
Test result is more second test than spam of first test
I received the
Hoi Eric,
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
if I run:
sa-learn --showdots --mbox --ham -p /opt/MailScanner/etc/spam.assassin.prefs.conf
sa-learn just hangs. Same happens for --spam.
strace shows it stuck on a read(0,
The reason it is stuck on read(0, is that it's expecting input on its
STDIN. Try th
Hi everyone,
There seem to be some learning-problems with our Bayes database which
I'm trying to track down.
Given a particular spam-message that got auto-trained as ham, then
re-trained as spam, I would like to be able to do the following:
1.) Make sure whether it's in the Bayes database or no
>Did the message you tested with
>have a URI? If so what was it?
Sigh. :-(
No. I naively thought it would list something anyway.
Back to circle 1.
OK, so I ran it again against a message with lots of URIs (specifically one
of my previous messages which got pummeled by dailyhills :-) and spamassa
Hi,
We are running SA 3.02 with Bayes in a MySQL 4.1 DB. When trying to
replicate the Bayes DB data to our slave DB's we receive errors
regarding duplicate tokens.
Anyone had this problem, and are you aware of it? Can this be resolved?
If you require any additional info, please let me know.
--
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 9:36:32 PM, Vicki Brown wrote:
>>debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x84f3804)
>>implements 'parsed_metadata'
>>debug: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
>>debug: Net::DNS version: 0.48
>>debug: trying (3) google.com...
>>debug: looking up NS fo
From: "Vicki Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Did you restart spamd?
>
> N.
Good, bad, or indifferent the rule may be this is probably the reason
it did not fire at all. Restart spamd after changing rules.
service spamassassin restart
That works for Mandrake, RedHat, and I believe for SUSE. D
At 18:12 -0800 03/16/2005, Jeff Chan wrote:
>
>Don't make a rule, use SURBLs. This one is listed five times
>over:
Well, yes, good idea. But.
As you're already aware, I'm (somehow) not able to do that. Different
thread...
Besides, it's actually only a coincidental detail as to which rule didn't
Vicki Brown wrote:
At 17:57 -0800 03/16/2005, Loren Wilton wrote:
Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
How are you running SA?
spamd -d -c
at system startup
then, from procmailrc, I push each message through
| /usr/local/bin/spamc -s 256000 -t 60
Did you resta
At 17:57 -0800 03/16/2005, Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
>
>How are you running SA?
spamd -d -c
at system startup
then, from procmailrc, I push each message through
| /usr/local/bin/spamc -s 256000 -t 60
>Did you restart spamd?
N
At 23:31 +0100 03/16/2005, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>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
I had sent 3 messages to the spamassassin .
1. First test
score SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS 0
# This is result
spam : 28468
norma : 1532
2. Second test
score SUBJ_ILLEGAL_CHARS 3.475
# This is result
spam : 28435
normal : 1565
Test result is more second test than spam of first test
I received the
At 08:03 PM 3/16/2005, Vicki Brown wrote:
Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
This rule is in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
body CF_BAD_URL4 /www\.(vdrugz|gh6)\.net/i
score CF_BAD_URL4 10.0
describe CF_BAD_URL4 .net Junk site
I received a piece of m
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 12:29:41 PM, List User wrote:
(Jeff C wrote:)
>>uridnsbl used in the default rule URIBL_SBL does check domain
>>name servers against SBL, but I'm kind of surprised to hear it
>>triggering on email addresses. It should definitely be
>>checking web
>>sites and the like
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 5:03:42 PM, Vicki Brown wrote:
> Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
> This rule is in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> body CF_BAD_URL4 /www\.(vdrugz|gh6)\.net/i
> score CF_BAD_URL4 10.0
> describe CF_BAD_URL4 .net Ju
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 2:31:34 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> 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.
> Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
How are you running SA? Did you restart spamd? In many setups SA is
persistant, and needs to be explicitly reloaded in some way or other to
reload the modified rules.
Did you run spamassassin --lint from the console on your r
Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
This rule is in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
body CF_BAD_URL4 /www\.(vdrugz|gh6)\.net/i
score CF_BAD_URL4 10.0
describe CF_BAD_URL4 .net Junk site
I received a piece of mail containing the string
http://www
46 matches
Mail list logo
