At 23:02 -0800 03/18/2005, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>Easier:
>
> header CF_NOT_FOR_METoCc !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
> PROTECTED])/i
Well, yeah, at least shorter and arguably cleaner but I was a) playing with
meta rules and b) at one point had this idea that I might actually do
som
At 10:55 -0500 03/19/2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
>And be sure to spamassassin --lint it (should run without any messages),
>and restart spamd after adding the rules.
I realize that this is standard canonical advice and I will make the
necessary assumption that it's not really being directed at me b
I could give it a score of 0 but I'd like to simply say "don't even test
against it".
I'm getting tired of seeing ALL_TRUSTED. We run SMTP; they connect directly
to us; there are no interim hosts.
I could edit the underlying rule file but then I'd have to do that after any
update. is there an "o
At 23:25 -0800 03/18/2005, jdow wrote:
>Not having read the first part of this I do note there is not any blanket
>way to say it's only related to not starting spamd. There is still the
>3.0x bug related to spamd children. The FIRST time a child runs a message
>it reads rules properly. Every time a
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> >Well, I guess this gives us a good reason to finally get around to
> >writing our own hashing subsystem...
>
> Unfortunately that might not be a workable option Justin. The reason DCC
> is changing license is because it's infringing on a broad patent o
At 12:49 AM 3/19/2005, Vicki Brown wrote:
The rule
header __CF_NOT_TO_ME To !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
PROTECTED])/i
header __CF_NOT_CC_ME Cc !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
PROTECTED])/i
meta CF_NOT_FOR_ME__CF_NOT_TO_ME && __CF_NOT_CC_ME
score CF_NOT_FO
At 07:55 AM 3/19/2005, MIKE YRABEDRA wrote:
Is there a way to stop processing once the message is seen as spam? Version
2.6 had the -S option, but that no longer works.
No, that feature has been dead since at least 2.30. The flag may have been
accepted, but it's been dead for a LONG time.
The pro
Is there a way to stop processing once the message is seen as spam? Version
2.6 had the -S option, but that no longer works.
On Saturday, March 19, 2005, 4:36:42 AM, alan premselaar wrote:
> I think you're thinking of Greylisting.
> It'll reject mail from a certain triple (sender/receiver/ip) the first
> time it comes in, record it in some form (database/filesystem/etc) and
> apply certain time delays so if the mail f
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2005, 2:13:23 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
From: "Yang Xiao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi all,
I've been noticing it lately that almost 90% of emails come in through
our secondary MX host are spams, I just want to know if there's an
explanation for this, my guess is that t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kelson wrote:
Larry Starr wrote:
On Friday 18 March 2005 08:17, Alexander Bochmann wrote:
there are many setups where
the ISP or someone else runs a backup MX for his
customer's domains as a service. With this configuration,
the secondary MX will usually not know about vali
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not having read the first part of this I do note there is not any blanket
> way to say it's only related to not starting spamd. There is still the
> 3.0x bug related to spamd children. The FIRST time a child runs a message
> it reads rules properly. Every time
From: "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vicki Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The rule
> > header __CF_NOT_TO_ME To !~
/(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])/i
> > header __CF_NOT_CC_ME Cc !~
/(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])/i
> > meta CF_NOT_FOR_ME
On Friday, March 18, 2005, 2:13:23 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
> From: "Yang Xiao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Hi all,
>> I've been noticing it lately that almost 90% of emails come in through
>> our secondary MX host are spams, I just want to know if there's an
>> explanation for this, my guess is that the
Vicki Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The rule
> header __CF_NOT_TO_ME To !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
> PROTECTED])/i
> header __CF_NOT_CC_ME Cc !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
> PROTECTED])/i
> meta CF_NOT_FOR_ME__CF_NOT_TO_ME && __CF_NOT_CC_ME
> sc
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:39:13 -0800, Evan Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless I'm missing the point... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> would be a much better solution. :)
Thanks. :) It doesn't work. I tried to unsubscribe, received a
confirmation message from yahoogroups, confirmed unsubscription but
sti
Justin Mason wrote:
> yeah -- as discussed in the Plugin pod docs, the life-cycle of the objects
> you have access to there is:
I'm currently trying to work this so the LDAP session is maintained for
the lifetime of the module. TCP sessions are pretty expensive, and having
hundreds or even thous
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:37:09 -0500, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Roman Serbski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Could you please help me with one SA subject rule that sometimes works
> > and sometimes doesn't.
> >
> > SpamAssassin 3.0.2 with qmail-scanner 1.25s
--On Friday, March 18, 2005 2:55 PM -0500 Pierre Thomson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tried the trick with a tertiary entry matching the primary, but it
didn't reduce the spam at the secondary very much.
It would be useful to figure out why this is so. Did you use the same host
name for both pri
The rule
header __CF_NOT_TO_ME To !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
PROTECTED])/i
header __CF_NOT_CC_ME Cc !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
PROTECTED])/i
meta CF_NOT_FOR_ME__CF_NOT_TO_ME && __CF_NOT_CC_ME
score CF_NOT_FOR_ME 0.01
describe CF_NOT_FOR
Nigel Wilkinson wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> my spam directory used for bayes learning now holds over 3000 emails.
> If I delete them then next time I run sa-learn will I loose everything
> spamassassin has learnt. Also, same question for ham.
You can delete them. Sa-learn stores everything it needs t
It worked well for us, actually, better. To give some light on the
subject, specificly the SURBLS made a HUGE difference in our case. For
the users with not enough spam on their servers, pop a website on goggle
for indexing that contains one of their e-mail addresses and they'll
have plenty :-
On Friday, March 18, 2005, 8:40:45 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> 3) experiment to see which specific network tests are slow by setting
> their score to 0 one at a time.
In particular try setting the score of URIBL_SBL to 0
since its style of SBL lookups is significantly slower than
SURBL lookups, and
Hi folks
my spam directory used for bayes learning now holds over 3000 emails. If I
delete them then next time I run sa-learn will I loose everything
spamassassin has learnt. Also, same question for ham.
Cheers
Nigel
pgpLufxE7wurH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Has anyone else been getting these lately? It has shut down my incoming
mail.
amavis[23480]: TROUBLE in child_init_hook: BDB no dbS: Lock table is
out of available locker entries, No such file or directory. at (eval
36) line 25.
Mark Martinec's mailing of 8/20/04 11:07 AM suggested the
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:57:43PM +, Nigel Wilkinson wrote:
> my spam directory used for bayes learning now holds over 3000 emails. If I
> delete them then next time I run sa-learn will I loose everything
> spamassassin has learnt. Also, same question for ham.
When you sa-learn a message, t
From: "Yang Xiao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi all,
> I've been noticing it lately that almost 90% of emails come in through
> our secondary MX host are spams, I just want to know if there's an
> explanation for this, my guess is that the spammers spam the secondary
> MX host intentionally for some r
I just had the reverse problem. Working for a large company using Exchange
for outbound business email we were always hitting one company's secondary
MX which was broken (sent back rejections).
Our servers just liked the second MX better than the primary MX for some
reason. When I manually telnete
Very interesting discussion.
I run a secondary MX without SA, which normally forwards everything to the
primary, IOW a store-and-forward relay. The secondary gets a steady stream of
spam all day long, about 1/3 as much as the primary. I tried the trick with a
tertiary entry matching the prima
Greg Abbas wrote:
>Paul Boven chello.nl> writes:
>
>
>>Yes, they're forwarding the messages as attachements, and yes, I'm
>>stripping them out of the message/rfc822 attachements before feeding
>>them to Bayes. And in all the tests I've done so far this seems to work,
>>but now that we've upg
Greetings,
I've been in communication with Paul Lesneiwski
of SquirrelMail, and he brought my attention to the
SquirrelMail plugin, SquirrelSAP, that was announced for SpamAssassin
with SQL on this list.
I am the author of the SpamAssassin+SQL plugin
(http://www.squirrelmail.org/plugin_view.php?id=
Paul Boven chello.nl> writes:
> Yes, they're forwarding the messages as attachements, and yes, I'm
> stripping them out of the message/rfc822 attachements before feeding
> them to Bayes. And in all the tests I've done so far this seems to work,
> but now that we've upgraded to SA3.0.2 I can't p
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 01:09:30PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> It looks like fedora's spamassassin 3.0.2 rpm builds properly on x86_64
> without errors, maybe someone can look at their rpm and see what's
> different?
Yeah, they basically took the libspamc.so build out, which is the same as my
pat
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> 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 ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David F. Colwell writes:
> ... but as I am a user and not a developer I feel I have uncovered as
> much as I can. As Paul Jacobson indicated on 2/2/05 the problem may be
> with SA's db calls and the BerkeleyDB docs certainly suggest it is
> possib
35 matches
Mail list logo
