From: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Find a creative and positive solution. Educate, be polite, offer to set up
a
> less amateurish mail system that would provide a way for customers to opt
> out of the emailings, ask your wife to learn to cut your hair. But for the
> love of Elvis don't act
From: "Stewart, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well, I just got a call from the person at the store who is responsible
for
> setting up the technical side of things.
>
> It was not a good conversation.
>
> I was very calm (until the end) and tried to explain why it was a bad
idea,
> what they needed
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *snip*
> Do NOT place false appointments. Do not hack site. DO Educate.
>
> Note: Make sure you do all this AFTER they cut your hair :)
{^v^}
From: "Stewart, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do I:
>
> - Never go there again, as I said would be the case in my previous email?
>
> - Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
>
> - Just screw with their (horribly insecure) online site, signing up for
> appointments al
Rob, I use procmail here and use a procmail recipe to tag the EXE
such files. It's easier there than in SpamAssassin. I use the
"nkvir" scripts to some good effect.
(Of course, Earthlink recently got "angry" with all the Sober nonsense
and turned on everybody's SpamBlocker. My first reaction was a
List Mail User wrote:
JohnS,
As many of the regulars on this list can tell you, I *hate* spam
as much as nearly anyone here; But... Mike is absolutely correct, what
they have done is "slimely", but is not for most purposes "spam" (IANAL).
It is UCE (unsolicited commercial email),
From: "Robert Menschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello jdow,
>
> Friday, May 6, 2005, 4:21:49 AM, you wrote:
>
> j> From: "Cialis $89, Soma $59, Viagra $69" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> j> Guess what? It passes right through all the tests because the drugs
> j> are never mentioned in the body of the ma
Folks:
Every now and then a obvious spam message slips by SA and, when I look
in the maillog for the message id that got past, I see the following ...
May 6 17:50:38 linux spamd[3396]: error: Insecure dependency in eval
while running setuid at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Per
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> I am planning to fallback to 3.0.2 version. Can you please let me know if
> 3.0.2 code also has same problem or any other issues.
I had the same problem with 3.0.2. I had to turn off Bayes and AWL, and
have yet to turn them back on. I reported this prob
> > > > www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
> Yes, all the discussions on this list that contain the above text
> are being flagged by my SA as hitting the OB SURBL list.
>
> That particular host/URL is only registered in the OB list, do you
> have a check against:
>check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.sur
>...
>From: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Confession and rage
>Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:34:00 -0700
>...
>
>[snipped - um, pun intended]
>
>Okay, I'm going to take the devil's advocate approach here. By signing up
>with them, you created a
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Stewart, John wrote:
>
> > > I'm starting to see references in messages that look like this:
> > >
> > > www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
>
> >
> > Upgrade to SA-2.6.4+SpamCopURI, catches those just fine. ;)
> >
>
> I'm running 2.6.4 with SpamCopURI - is this being flagged on your
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:33:09PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >When i test, I found that SA still use the score set 1 to calculate
> >the total score. Score set 1 is "Bayes is disabled, but network tests
> >are enabled". I did disable bayes, but why network test disabling
> >doesn't work?
> Try u
Ryan L. Sun wrote:
>Hi, all
>
>I am trying disable network test (RBL, SBL etc) in SA.
>In my "user_prefs" file, I have:
>
># Enable or disable network checks
>skip_rbl_checks 1
>use_razor2 0
>use_dcc 0
>use_pyzor 0
>
>When i test, I found that SA
> > I'm starting to see references in messages that look like this:
> >
> > www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
>
> Upgrade to SA-2.6.4+SpamCopURI, catches those just fine. ;)
>
I'm running 2.6.4 with SpamCopURI - is this being flagged on your install as
being in the URI-BL? This email wasn't tagged
Hi, all
I am trying disable network test (RBL, SBL etc) in SA.
In my "user_prefs" file, I have:
# Enable or disable network checks
skip_rbl_checks 1
use_razor2 0
use_dcc 0
use_pyzor 0
When i test, I found that SA still use the score set 1 to cal
Bret Miller wrote:
> I'm starting to see references in messages that look like this:
>
> www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
>
>
> Of course, it's not really a valid URL,
Actually, it is. A single trailing dot is perfectly legal in a FQDN. In fact,
it's arguably a good thing to put the trailing dot
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Bret Miller wrote:
> I'm starting to see references in messages that look like this:
>
> www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
>
>
> Of course, it's not really a valid URL, but then the spam gets through
> too. Is it possible to strip excess garbage ( . / ) off the end of the
> domain b
As I'm on a mac there's a lot of file types I don't care about so I just have
perl scripts that go thru the mail using MIME::Entity etc and remove them.
I based my code of some code Randall Schwartz wrote once to remove the annoying
WINMAIL.DAT attachments etc.
Quoting Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTE
I'm starting to see references in messages that look like this:
www.achat-montre-rolex.net./
Of course, it's not really a valid URL, but then the spam gets through
too. Is it possible to strip excess garbage ( . / ) off the end of the
domain before processing it?
Running SpamAssassin 3.1.0-r164
Ok, right on! I fixed the trusted_networks thing, and check this out!
BTW, the jerks are using another domain.. for a new "division." my god,
CAN-SPAM is a piece of crap. How the *hell* did it get passed? Ugh.
At least it's getting plonked now. And with that, off to KFC I go...
Return-Path: <[EM
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Stewart, John wrote:
> I'm still torn on whether to show up for my appointment at 1pm. I think just
> because I was treated with contempt by the person I spoke to earlier, I
> don't want to give them my money...
Yes. Anyone who wastes your time and treats you with contempt shou
Stewart, John wrote:
Well, I just got a call from the person at the store who is
responsible for setting up the technical side of things.
It was not a good conversation.
I recall a telephone solicitation ...
I was getting calls from a cemetery about their great real estate
deals ... on the same
Chris Santerre wrote:
*snip*
Cliffs: Hairdresser is spamming anyone with an account.
Do I:
- Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
Yup.
Yes ... if you show up in person ... as a client ...
she will react differently than to eMail or telephone.
- Simply ban their dom
Chris Lear wrote:
* Stewart, John wrote (05/06/05 15:55):
[... excellent story chopped ...]
Do I:
- Never go there again, as I said would be the case in my previous email?
- Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
- Just screw with their (horribly insecure) online site,
Hi,
I'm using:
Solaris : 5.8
Perl : 5.8.2
SpamAssassin : 3.0.3
Berkeley DB : 4.3.27
DB_File : 1.811
When I try to initialize Bayes by executing "sa-learn --sync", I get the
debug messages shown below from bayes. Any ideas why the db version
would be 0?
---
>-Original Message-
>From: Jason Frisvold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:22 PM
>To: Chris Santerre
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Anybody order Alistairs book from Pakt?
>
>
>On 5/6/05, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Side note: He r
Try the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath
Which will end up explaining a few things, and then direct you to the
manpages for the trusted_networks setting.
Ah. Thanks! :D
I added "trusted_networks 192.168/16 127/8" to local.cf - the box itself
is a 192.168.x.x host, as it's behin
On 5/6/05, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Side note: He recently asked for feedback of things you would like to see
> added to a second addition. So if you got any, fire him a quick email.
> Looking to take it to a more advanced level.
Ahh.. very cool.. Where do I send the info? :)
>-Original Message-
>From: Jason Frisvold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 2:56 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Anybody order Alistairs book from Pakt?
>
>
>On 5/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just curi
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
>
>> The OP said nothing about having verified and set the trust path, and
>> his server setup does appear to use a local IP, which means that
>> there's a good chance that, *in his case*, the actual problem is not
>> with the ALL_TRUSTED *rule* but with the *actual trust p
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:02:45AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> > body_parts can never contain the current node nor parent nodes, so the patch
> > doesn't actually do anything.
>
> How is that asserted? "Deep recursion" would make it sound like it
> does indeed contain one of those -- although bu
The OP said nothing about having verified and set the trust path, and
his server setup does appear to use a local IP, which means that there's
a good chance that, *in his case*, the actual problem is not with the
ALL_TRUSTED *rule* but with the *actual trust path*. In that case,
disabling ALL
On 5/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just curious if there's anybody here who ordered Alistair MacDonald's SA book
> from Pakt and whether they remember how long after ordering did it take to
> arrive.
I ordered 2 of them... (home and office) ...
I think it only took a few
Just curious if there's anybody here who ordered Alistair MacDonald's SA book
from Pakt and whether they remember how long after ordering did it take to
arrive.
Cheers.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Progr
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
I am reasonably sure that my trusted and internal network paths are
correct. I base this on the fact that 1) all DNSRBL rules are being
applied correctly, 2) SPF checks are working properly, and 3) I am under
the illusion that I know what I am doing and can follow proc
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
Kelson wrote:
Which won't solve the problem of the trust path being incorrect and
causing SA to check the wrong hosts against blacklists, etc.
If he can get his trust path working, he's much better off doing so
than just masking the symptom of ALL_TRUSTED misfiring.
I
On 5/6/2005 5:38 AM, Beast wrote:
> I would like to create a mail/antispam gateway using postfix,sqlgrey and
> spam assassin. I don't want to install Av on this gateway because it
> already handle separately by each internal mail server.
> What is the recomendation on SA setup and which is prefe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> body_parts can never contain the current node nor parent nodes, so the patch
> doesn't actually do anything.
How is that asserted? "Deep recursion" would make it sound like it
does indeed contain one of those -- although bu
Kelson wrote:
Which won't solve the problem of the trust path being incorrect and
causing SA to check the wrong hosts against blacklists, etc.
If he can get his trust path working, he's much better off doing so than
just masking the symptom of ALL_TRUSTED misfiring.
I would *not* recommend dis
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:18:03AM +0545, Bikrant Neupane wrote:
> > > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > > line 659
> >
> > could you try this patch? if it doesn't work, I sug
On Friday May 6 2005 12:45 pm, Stewart, John wrote:
> > >Although not the ideal solution, it will suffice, I suppose.
> >
> > I wouldn't
> >
> > >think at this point (assuming they make this change) that it warrants
> > >submission to any RBLs.
> >
> > I do. I think that if they don't offer an opt
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
Right, so clearly your email is incorrectly hitting the "ALL_TRUSTED"
rule which is lowering its score by 2.4 points. Otherwise, it would
have been above your kill level of 6. Apparently there is some means of
getting ALL_TRUSTED to work properly but personally I've ne
Robert Menschel wrote:
Best I've seen in a bunch of testing:
rawbody __LW_URI_CR1 /href=\"[^"]*\r[^\n]/is
full __LW_URI_CR2 /href=\"[^"]*\r[^\n]/is
meta LW_URI_CR __LW_URI_CR1 || __LW_URI_CR2
score LW_URI_CR 2
describe LW_URI_CR unescaped cr in uri
#hist LW_URI_CR Loren Wil
> >Although not the ideal solution, it will suffice, I suppose.
> I wouldn't
> >think at this point (assuming they make this change) that it warrants
> >submission to any RBLs.
>
> I do. I think that if they don't offer an opt out then it
> becomes unsolicited.
The opt-out was to email back t
At 09:17 AM Friday, 5/6/2005, John wrote -=>
Well, I just got another call from the co-owner in charge of the software
side. She is having a disclaimer added to the site so that if you log in and
create an account, it tells you that you will get notified of special
offers, etc.
Of course, if you do
Hi Kevin, everyone,
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
Paul Boven wrote:
but my goal is to find a way of doing this that is
independent of the rest of the mail-system, and can then become an
integral part of SA.
Any suggestions on how to do this? One of SA's strengths is that it is
designed to be a modu
> If the OP has already asked (politely) to be removed, then they are
> indeed spamming. The first mail, I would say is warranted, the mails
> after the opt-out are not.
Exactly; I did ask. However, it appears that they rarely check the account
they have for sender address.
> If they are in th
> LOL yeah, just post her domain name here, and I'll add it to
> uribl.com ;)
> (Thats a URI-BL, not an RBL. The greatest antispam technique
> since blah blah blah.)
>
> Spamcop is always a good place.
Well, I just got another call from the co-owner in charge of the software
side. She is
Mike Jackson wrote:
[snipped - um, pun intended]
Okay, I'm going to take the devil's advocate approach here. By signing
up with them, you created a business relationship. While their emails
may be unwanted, they're not unsolicited. Your righteous indignation is
unfounded - as much as I hate spam
tmp wrote:
>I have enabled bayesian tests and sometimes a BAYES_xx shows up
>correctly in the tests="bla bla" field in the mail header. But not
>always. Shouldn't the bayesian test result always be listed here,
>eventually just as a BAYES_00?
>
>
You mean a BAYES_50. BAYES_00 is a very strong Ba
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:28:38AM -0500, Stewart, John wrote:
>
> Well, I just got a call from the person at the store who is responsible for
> setting up the technical side of things.
>
> It was not a good conversation.
>
> I was very calm (until the end) and tried to explain why it was a ba
Agree with these steps 100%!
| >- Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
|
| Yup.
|
| >
| >- Simply ban their domain from my mailserver and report them
| >to the RBLs?
|
| Yup. And tell her you will. Tell her she is about to get all her emails
| blocked from
On Friday May 6 2005 10:55 am, Stewart, John wrote:
> So, I was taking a shower this morning and was thinking I might send out a
> confessional email to this list... and then something else happened that
> has changed my outlook.
>
> The story is this... in my town, I've not been able for the longe
> Do I:
>
> - Never go there again, as I said would be the case in my previous email?
>
> - Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
>
> - Just screw with their (horribly insecure) online site, signing up for
> appointments all day for Elmer Fudd, etc?
>
> - Simply ban t
>-Original Message-
>From: Stewart, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:30 AM
>To: 'Chris Santerre'; 'users@spamassassin.apache.org'
>Subject: RE: Confession and rage
>
>
>
>> >- Simply ban their domain from my mailserver and report them
>> >to the RBLs?
>>
>>
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:51:13PM +0100, Piers Kittel wrote:
> found that after a few hours, I suddenly experience very high load
> averages, and extremely slow server performance for everything else, but
> if I restart spamassassin, the server works fine again, but it would
> start getting hig
[snipped - um, pun intended]
Okay, I'm going to take the devil's advocate approach here. By signing up
with them, you created a business relationship. While their emails may be
unwanted, they're not unsolicited. Your righteous indignation is unfounded -
as much as I hate spam, this is not spam,
> >- Simply ban their domain from my mailserver and report them
> >to the RBLs?
>
> Yup. And tell her you will. Tell her she is about to get all
> her emails
> blocked from 3/4 of the earth.
As I've never actually submitted a domain to any RBLs before, any
suggestions on good ones to use?
th
Well, I just got a call from the person at the store who is responsible for
setting up the technical side of things.
It was not a good conversation.
I was very calm (until the end) and tried to explain why it was a bad idea,
what they needed to do to make it work ethically, etc, how they could
Chris Santerre writes:
>
> *snip*
>
> Cliffs: Hairdresser is spamming anyone with an account.
>
> >
> >Do I:
>
> >
> >- Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
>
> Yup.
FWIW I had a similar experience. I thought I'd convinced the person
I talked to that spamming w
Hello jdow,
Friday, May 6, 2005, 4:21:49 AM, you wrote:
j> From: "Cialis $89, Soma $59, Viagra $69" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
j> Guess what? It passes right through all the tests because the drugs
j> are never mentioned in the body of the mail.
The next version of the SARE header rules should help ou
Stewart, John wrote:
So I've replied again to this spam (I'm not sure anyone actually reads them,
though, as the only response I have received over this was over the phone,
and she might have just been responding to my call).
So I have a 1pm haircut appointment today with the owner of the salon. I
* Stewart, John wrote (05/06/05 15:55):
[... excellent story chopped ...]
> Do I:
>
> - Never go there again, as I said would be the case in my previous email?
>
> - Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
>
> - Just screw with their (horribly insecure) online site,
Just think communication is the best issue - talk to the owner of the
saloon, and if it continues, blacklist them (report them or whatever)
and never go back to them and tell your mates about them. Word of mouth
is scarily powerful.
Yes what they are doing is bad, but they probably are learner
Aha - true, but the servers are spead very long way apart (other sides
of the country) and bandwidth is very narrow too.
Yeah Â90 expensive, but it's server RAM, also the server only takes ECC
memory which pushes up the cost. It's from Crucial so can't get better
for cheaper.
Thanks very much
*snip*
Cliffs: Hairdresser is spamming anyone with an account.
>
>Do I:
>
>- Show up and try to convince her what a horrible thing she is doing?
Yup.
>
>- Simply ban their domain from my mailserver and report them
>to the RBLs?
Yup. And tell her you will. Tell her she is about to get all he
So, I was taking a shower this morning and was thinking I might send out a
confessional email to this list... and then something else happened that has
changed my outlook.
The story is this... in my town, I've not been able for the longest time to
find a reliable person to cut my hair. The choice
I've recently moved from using anomy to amavisd-new..
While I'm still getting the hang of things I have not worked out how to
correctly add some soft whitelist points for this list.
Can someone please enlighten me?
Thanks
Alan
Piers Kittel wrote:
Hmm...
So if I get a 512MB strip and add it to the 384MB making it 896MB should
be enough to stop spamassassin bogging down the server somewhat chronic?
I've been running qmail/qmail-scanner/clamav/SA 2.64 on a p4 2.8 with
256mb ram for over a year now with no problems. I re
I use amavisd-lite. It's MUCH smaller and faster than amavisd-new.
http://www.ultrazone.org/software/amavisd-lite/
Jeff Moss
-Original Message-
From: Beast [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 5:39 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spamd or amavisd-new
I
Piers
yes it will help but Â90 for 512MB is expensive!
and I meant 2 machines to gateway all five.but I do concur it's a
bit overkill when budgets are tight.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Piers Kittel wrote:
Hmm...
So if I get a 512
Hmm...
So if I get a 512MB strip and add it to the 384MB making it 896MB should
be enough to stop spamassassin bogging down the server somewhat chronic?
Your second idea makes lots of sense, but for a small office (~8 people)
with an extremely limited budget, I don't think it's really worth it,
>-Original Message-
>From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 7:22 AM
>To: spamassassin-users
>Subject: Brandy spanky new drug spam trick
>
>
>From: "Cialis $89, Soma $59, Viagra $69" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Guess what? It passes right through all the tests because
>-Original Message-
>From: Hubert Sokolowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 7:43 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: AI methods in SpamAssassin
>
>
>
>Hi!
>
>What are AI method of filtering mail used in SpamAssassin?
>I know SpamAssassin uses Bayesian me
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Maul wrote:
Paul Boven wrote:
Bayes is a very powerfull system, especially for recognising
site-specific ham. But at this moment, apx. 30% of the spam that
slips trough my filter has 'autolearn=ham' set. And another 60% of
the spam slipping trough has a negative Ba
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi Kevin, everyone,
I agree that this would be difficult, but right now we're all facing
that difficulty on our own, so to speak. A more comprehensive Wiki would
help, but my goal is to find a way of doing this that is independent of
the rest of the mail-system, and can then be
Hi Kevin, everyone,
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
2.) There should be a framework within SpamAssassin that makes it easy
for end-users to submit their spam for training. Currently, there are
all kinds of scripts available outside the main SpamAssassin
distribution (I've written my own, too) that atte
Hi Jim,
Jim Maul wrote:
Paul Boven wrote:
Bayes is a very powerfull system, especially for recognising
site-specific ham. But at this moment, apx. 30% of the spam that slips
trough my filter has 'autolearn=ham' set. And another 60% of the spam
slipping trough has a negative Bayes score to help
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
Although it helps the system to get to know the ham we send and get, and
learn some of the sp
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Okay!
Some suggestions on improving the performance of the Bayes system:
1.) Messages that have been manually submitted should have a higher
'weight' in the Bay
Piers
that amount of memory is not alot for use with SA. I find you need at
least 512mb, esp when I've got lots of rule additions, a local caching
namesever to the uri-rbls etc etc
also you might to throttle back the amount of children spamd is spawning
as there is a known issue with spamd gene
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
Although it helps the system to get to know the ham we send and get, and
learn some of the sp
Hello all,
Have set up 5 email servers in various locations across the UK and they
all are connected to each other. They all are using Debian Sarge. As I
wanted spam detection, I installed spamassassin using the official
debian packages and following
http://www.clues.ltd.uk/howto/debian-sa-fp
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 14:28 +0200, Paul Boven wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
> to share, and have your input on.
>
> Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
> Although it helps the system to get to know
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
Although it helps the system to get to know the ham we send and get, and
learn some of the spams on its own, it
tmp wrote:
I have enabled bayesian tests and sometimes a BAYES_xx shows up
correctly in the tests="bla bla" field in the mail header. But not
always. Shouldn't the bayesian test result always be listed here,
eventually just as a BAYES_00?
Things worked perfectly on my old 2.6x installation but afte
Hi!
What are AI method of filtering mail used in SpamAssassin?
I know SpamAssassin uses Bayesian methods, which can be categorized to AI.
But are there any others? Maybe based on neural networks?
regards
hs
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Whoops. I thought that I did, clearly I did not.
Here's the full header:
From - Thu May 5 09:12:37 2005
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mailgate.pbp.net (mailgate.pbp.net [192.168.10.87])
by mail.pbp.ne
From: "Cialis $89, Soma $59, Viagra $69" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Guess what? It passes right through all the tests because the drugs
are never mentioned in the body of the mail.
{^_^}
>Couldn't we just write a rule that adds points when it see's the "unknown"
in the MX, I >also use postfix, so postfix specific..
>Received: from predialnet.com.br (unknown [200.218.176.14])
Could. But as others have discussed, it will lead to fps if it has very
much weight at all.
Lore
> Most of my spam that's getting through at this point is stuff that has a
URI
> with multiple carriage returns in it like this:
>
> I know this trick has been discussed. I looked for a bug report, and
couldn't
> find one on this particular thing. I did find a thread in the archives
about
There
> They seem legitimate, but slimely as hell. They have the domains
> clicklexicon. com, 1500V. net, azoogle. com, ChristianMortgageUSA com,
> azoogleads. com, azoogle. com and a bunch more. All have technical
violations
>
> P.S. Some of the names on th registrations are distictly slaviic
(probab
I would like to create a mail/antispam gateway using postfix,sqlgrey and
spam assassin. I don't want to install Av on this gateway because it
already handle separately by each internal mail server.
What is the recomendation on SA setup and which is preferred, using
spamd or amavisd-new (traffic
On 5/4/2005 1:11 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Got any better suggestions for a name?
STS = Sender Trending Score
It is an independent score that is applied separately based on the
sender's historical trend.
Consonants make better acronyms.
And it's accurate!
--
Eric A. Hall
Matt Kettler wrote:
Kelson wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Or were you under the misconception based on the name AWL that it is
only a whitelist?
The AWL isn't really a whitelist, it's a score averager. It has effect
of both an automatic whitelist and an automatic blacklist.
http://wiki.apache.
Craig
I found SA 3.0.3 correctly spotted this and fed it to surbl.org URI-RBLs
which trapped it.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Craig Baird wrote:
Most of my spam that's getting through at this point is stuff that has a URI
with multiple ca
I have enabled bayesian tests and sometimes a BAYES_xx shows up
correctly in the tests="bla bla" field in the mail header. But not
always. Shouldn't the bayesian test result always be listed here,
eventually just as a BAYES_00?
Things worked perfectly on my old 2.6x installation but after upgradin
On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:52, Justin Mason wrote:
> Bikrant Neupane writes:
> > from maillog
> > Deep recursion on subroutine "Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node::finish"
> > at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm
> > line 659
>
> could you try this patch? if it
>...
>
>Hello Craig,
>
>Thursday, May 5, 2005, 10:33:51 AM, you wrote:
>
>CB> Most of my spam that's getting through at this point is stuff that has a
>URI
>CB> with multiple carriage returns in it like this:
>
>CB> >
>
>CB> I know this trick has been discussed. I looked for a bug report, and
>c
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
