Paul R. Ganci wrote:
I am running Spamassassin 3.0.2 on a RaQ 550 using spamd and calling
spamc from procmail. I have found several instances now where the
spamd child is respawned just as it is about to start processing a
message.
Can anybody give me even a wild guess on this one? Believe i
Matt Kettler wrote:
Paul R. Ganci wrote:
-rw-rw-rw-1 prganci users 165988 May 14 10:05 bayes_journal
-rw---1 pangione users 34 May 14 10:00 bayes.lock
That's a little troubling.. are you having problems with spamd instances
crashing? The lock is at least 5 m
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 23:07 -0500, Bob McClure Jr wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:39:50AM +0930, Tom Lanyon wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Forgive me if this is a common question or one which has been answered
> > elsewhere, but I cannot find the answer anywhere.
> >
> > I want to enable spamassa
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:39:50AM +0930, Tom Lanyon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Forgive me if this is a common question or one which has been answered
> elsewhere, but I cannot find the answer anywhere.
>
> I want to enable spamassassin on our production mail server, however I
> only want to filter for
spamd -L
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Neal Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2005 June, 16, Thursday 19:09
Subject: spamc -L ?
> There is spamassassin -L, but not spamc -L. Why not? I want to use with
> kmail, and spamc (with network check) is too slow on my home machine.
>
Hi All,
Forgive me if this is a common question or one which has been answered
elsewhere, but I cannot find the answer anywhere.
I want to enable spamassassin on our production mail server, however I
only want to filter for spam on selected email accounts.
I was thinking of doing an all_spam_to
There is spamassassin -L, but not spamc -L. Why not? I want to use with
kmail, and spamc (with network check) is too slow on my home machine.
spamassassin -L is OK, but woundn't a spamc -L be faster since it avoids
startup cost?
jj-ml wrote:
Hi all,
I discover a problem today with our webmail (Horde/IMP).
When i send a message using it, the message is tag as spam if i have a
dynamic ISP addess.
here is part of the message:
Are these the (only) received headers that were given to SpamAssassin?
Received: from 127.0.
Pardon me - I misread your memo. They use adding rather than multiplying.
Adding is more appropriate for scores related to spam than to ham. (The
proper would be to somehow invert the probability of being spam score,
multiply them together, and then reinvert to get a spaminess score. The
additions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric A. Hall writes:
> On 6/15/2005 3:20 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> > Eric -- you may have to patch the AutoWhitelist class to throw those
> > numbers into variables hanging off the PerMsgStatus object. Then the
> > plugin can access those values s
Richard Ozer wrote:
> I have a particular address whitelisted via
> "spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
> It works for a while, but then comes back reported as spam after a
> week or two.
This is "normal" due to the way the AWL works.
> I recieve mail from this user, tagged with AWL, as well as B
On 6/15/2005 3:20 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
> Eric -- you may have to patch the AutoWhitelist class to throw those
> numbers into variables hanging off the PerMsgStatus object. Then the
> plugin can access those values safely.
>
> I'd be +1 on applying a patch that simply sets a variable or two o
I'm trying to update my ldap plugin to use SRV lookups for server
discovery but am getting barked at during tests with the "Insecure
dependency in connect..." error. I'm not having much luck with googling
this error, but I remember this was a problem with razor and spamassassin
before, and I'm won
John Fleming wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:08:22 -0500:
> I'm not sure I fully understand why the single digit entries allowed BAYES_
> score headers on spam but not ham, but I'm happy to use the multiple scores
> and have all of my BAYES_ entries back.
Hm, just checked our setup and we changed
Chris Hastie wrote:
The industry that I work in is currently having its concept of risk assessment
thoroughly shaken. The sort of risks we deal with have three main, largely
independant factors. For years we've been assigning a value to each of these
factors, and then adding them up to come up wi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/16/2005 02:10:27 PM:
> Andy, can you open a bug at bugzilla, run with debugs on for a while
and
> collect 1 or 2 of those cases, and attach the debug log to the bug?
>
> sounds like it warrants checking out.
>
> --j.
Done. Bug 4407.
Andy
On Thursday 16 June 2005 01:42 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just received some spam built like
> V some words I more text I Is there any way to detect these?
Here's what I use:
rawbody SENET_DISPNONE /\
Andy, can you open a bug at bugzilla, run with debugs on for a while and
collect 1 or 2 of those cases, and attach the debug log to the bug?
sounds like it warrants checking out.
--j.
I have a particular address whitelisted via
"spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
It works for a while, but then comes back reported as spam after a week or
two.
I recieve mail from this user, tagged with AWL, as well as BAYES40. However
there are a couple of spammy rules fired that seem to over
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
From: "Chris Hastie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thus if a piece of mail has failed all three of these tests, the
probability of
it being ham is 0.05 * 0.2 * 0.4 = 0.004, or 1/250. Or put another way, we
can
be 99.6% sure it is spam.
They got th
Niek wrote:
> On 6/16/2005 3:35 PM +0200, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
>
>>> debug: DNS: timeout for ahbl after 20 seconds
>>>
>>> Any idea of what could be wrong?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ugo
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone?
>
>
> lookup something something manually on those two boxes:
> host 2.0.0.127.dnsbl.
- Original Message -
From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Bayes? (MORE)
John Fleming wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:25:28 -0500:
Note that there -is- a BAYES_ entry! I have some modified Bayes scores
in
my local.cf, and som
On 6/16/2005 3:35 PM +0200, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
debug: DNS: timeout for ahbl after 20 seconds
Any idea of what could be wrong?
Regards,
Ugo
Anyone?
lookup something something manually on those two boxes:
host 2.0.0.127.dnsbl.ahbl.org
that should come back with:
2.0.0.127.dnsbl.ahbl.or
> I just received some spam built like
> V some words I more text I
> Is there any way to detect these?
Sure. rawbody or full rule.
Loren
Dr Robert Young wrote:
Does anyone have information on the installation/upgrade of V3 of
Spamassassin, on a system already running V2? Should the new version
go "on top" of the older one, or as a separate product install? Any
issues one should be aware of?
I am installing on RedHat 6.2 and
At 05:39 PM 6/15/2005, Dr Robert Young wrote:
Does anyone have information on the installation/upgrade of V3 of
Spamassassin, on a system already running V2? Should the new version go
"on top" of the older one, or as a separate product install?
Yep. Just install directly on top of the old on
Dr Robert Young wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:39:04 -0400:
> Should the new version
> go "on top" of the older one, or as a separate product install? Any
> issues one should be aware of?
You can just upgrade. But read the upgrade instructions, several options
have been removed/added. Also, ther
John Fleming wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:25:28 -0500:
> Note that there -is- a BAYES_ entry! I have some modified Bayes scores in
> my local.cf, and some of them only have one numerical entry after the title
> instead of the usual 4. Can anyone imagine that does something strange to
> the Ba
wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:42:24 +0200:
> V some words I
> more text
> I
> Is there any way to detect these?
detect this: ???
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
At 03:44 PM 6/15/2005, Network Operations wrote:
We are an isp that currently runs through either qmail-scanner or Plesk
spamassassin. 2.6x and i believe 3.x. We are having issues with spamd
getting into the 125+mb process size at 4 to 5 processes. We are running
from Fedora to FreeBSD 4.9+ and
In the process of setting up a new server,
so I thought I'd give SA 3.1 a try. Install went fine, but in looking
at my maillog, I'm seeing the following errors about every 5 minutes. Anyone
have an idea what the cause might be? Running FreeBSD 5.4, Sendmail
8.13.3, SA3.1 SVN snapshot from yeste
Ugo Bellavance wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I get this message on 2 servers, while all my other servers, with the
> same config are ok.
>
> debug: DNS: timeout for ahbl after 20 seconds
>
> Any idea of what could be wrong?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ugo
>
>
Anyone?
From: "Chris Hastie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The industry that I work in is currently having its concept of risk
assessment
> thoroughly shaken. The sort of risks we deal with have three main, largely
> independant factors. For years we've been assigning a value to each of
these
> factors, and then
Hi all,
I discover a problem today with our webmail (Horde/IMP).
When i send a message using it, the message is tag as spam if i have a
dynamic ISP addess.
here is part of the message:
Received: from 127.0.0.1 by mx (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, uid
103) with qmail-scanner-1.24
(clamdscan
The industry that I work in is currently having its concept of risk assessment
thoroughly shaken. The sort of risks we deal with have three main, largely
independant factors. For years we've been assigning a value to each of these
factors, and then adding them up to come up with a figure representa
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:42:24AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just received some spam built like
> V some words I
> more text I
> Is there any way to detect these?
If I run this through SA I get:
3.1 HTML_OBFUSCATE_40_50 BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML obfuscation
1.0 J_BACKHAIR_14
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
online.de writes
>I just received some spam built like
>V some words I
>more text I
>Is there any way to detect these?
Working on the logic that display:none is highly unlikely to ever appear
in ham I have the following rule, albeit scored fairly
Does anyone have information on the installation/upgrade of V3 of
Spamassassin, on a system already running V2? Should the new version
go "on top" of the older one, or as a separate product install? Any
issues one should be aware of?
I am installing on RedHat 6.2 and using a fairly recent ve
I just received some spam built like
V some words I
more text I
Is there any way to detect these?
Wolfgang Hamann
Network Operations wrote:
List;
We are an isp that currently runs through either qmail-scanner or Plesk
spamassassin. 2.6x and i believe 3.x. We are having issues with spamd
getting into the 125+mb process size at 4 to 5 processes. We are running
from Fedora to FreeBSD 4.9+ and qmail is the M
40 matches
Mail list logo
