Re: Anyone else seem spam like this?

Matthew Newton wrote: Hi, Have had several spams over the last few days with the exact paragraph below. Anyone else seen similar messages? Any rules available? Can't yet think of how to write rules for this, as it's so non-spam it obviously is (of that makes any sense). I'll have a think about it.

Re: spamd doesn't work any more..

Monty Ree wrote: Hello, all. I have operated spamassassin at my mail server. And sometimes, the spamd process seen, but doesn't work any more. So it only works after I restart spamd daemon. My system environment is... SpamAssassin version 3.0.2 redhat 9.0 kernel 2.4.30 sendmail 8.12.8-9.90 perl-5.8

Headers with extra whitespace missing filters in Exchange/Outlook ?

We're running SpamAssassin 2.63 with amavisd-new-20030616-p5 and postfix as a frontend to our Exchange server (yes, it all needs to be updated, but still working damn well). SA/amavisd-new tags all mail with scores (dropping stuff with scores over 20), and it's up to Exchange rules to filter to Sp

Re: SA does not detect some URIs ?

Nestor Burma wrote: >Hello, > >We just got some "obvious" spam going through SA. This >mail does include a not-quite obfuscated URL, which is > > >-- >Strange thing is that no URIBL rules are triggered. >But if we change HTTP to http, or WWW to www (or >both), those rules are properly trig

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Research wanted: age of spam gang URI dom ains

Agreed John. What I saw was patterns, and the dates of the domains involved in the patterns corelated. It wasn't anything worth tagging off of, but an interesting bit of data none the less. When you get what appears to be 3 different spammers, with spam runs within days of each other, all using d

Re: Anyone else seem spam like this?

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 07:37:35AM -0400, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote: > I haven't seen any of these myself, but it sounds like a job for > Bayes. Feed them all into sa-learn and soon enough they should be > hitting higher Bayes scores. Thanks, I can do that. However, the bayes scores are at mo

Re: New(?) 'writing direction switch'(?) obfuscation technique

Hi! I lately received two Barkley-Bank-Phishs, but could not really read them with my ASCII mailreader. The first line of the mail is in my ASCII Browser: D#8238;rae#8236; Ba#8238;lcr#8236;ays Memb#8238;re#8236;, All 'mozillas' show Dera Balcrays Membre, BUT even though MIME-encoding was of

RE: Research wanted: age of spam gang URI domains

>-Original Message- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:46 PM >To: SURBL Discuss; SpamAssassin Users >Subject: Research wanted: age of spam gang URI domains > > >Does anyone have research or references for the age profiles of >domains appearing in

Re: SA does not detect some URIs ?

Nestor Burma wrote: Strange thing is that no URIBL rules are triggered. But if we change HTTP to http, or WWW to www (or both), those rules are properly triggered. Since we are not (yet) SA-rules hackers, where should we look to upgrade locally our rules to detect this simple scheme ? Look in th

Re: Anyone else seem spam like this?

I haven't seen any of these myself, but it sounds like a job for Bayes. Feed them all into sa-learn and soon enough they should be hitting higher Bayes scores. Matthew Newton wrote: Hi, Have had several spams over the last few days with the exact paragraph below. Anyone else seen similar mes

Anyone else seem spam like this?

Hi, Have had several spams over the last few days with the exact paragraph below. Anyone else seen similar messages? Any rules available? Can't yet think of how to write rules for this, as it's so non-spam it obviously is (of that makes any sense). I'll have a think about it. There is an HTML pa

Re: amavisd-new

> Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote the following on 21/04/2005 16:05: >> The expected results of this, as I say, is that ALL emails will be >> tagged as spam; will have SA headers inserts; will have a copy placed >> into the the quarantine folder; and finally will be passed on back to >> the MTA for deliver

SA does not detect some URIs ?

Hello, We just got some "obvious" spam going through SA. This mail does include a not-quite obfuscated URL, which is -- L0we$t rate found right here: HTTP://WWW.cra3ybiz.com/st.asp -- Strange thing is that no URIBL rules are triggered. But if we change HTTP to http, or WW

spamd doesn't work any more..

Hello, all. I have operated spamassassin at my mail server. And sometimes, the spamd process seen, but doesn't work any more. So it only works after I restart spamd daemon. My system environment is... SpamAssassin version 3.0.2 redhat 9.0 kernel 2.4.30 sendmail 8.12.8-9.90 perl-5.8.0-88.3 at th

RE: rulesemporium.com availability

Chris, Back the discussion this time last year... When are you going to start letting us mirror the site... I tried downloading the rules to a new server yesterday and I swear it took 2 minutes per rule that it downloaded. Gary > -Original Message- > From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMA

Re: maybe a beginner's question

Hello Luca, Wednesday, April 20, 2005, 7:11:32 PM, you wrote: L> joined this group today as i wasn't lucky getting help from my ISP, who L> aired a "cant' do nothing about spam" attitude, want's to keep a zero L> false positive level so does nothing. Sounds like you need a new ISP. L> my ma