Ever since I "upgraded" to the 3.x series I've had a major jump
in spams that are getting through.
Initially my upgrade was to 3.02 as distributed in SuSE 9.3 and
my problems were related to old configuration files/options where
NONE of my spam was being tagged into the spam folder (i.e. the SPA
hi all,
running SA v3.2.0-r232569 on OSX 10.4.2., invoking it via Exim 4.53RC1
'exiscan-ner'.
i'm currently slogging thru getting all my perms ironed out across apps ...
on delivery of a message to the exim server, the message arrives, but spamd
debug-logging reports:
Sep 15 22:29:54 serv
Loren Wilton wrote:
Ah. There were some changes in 3.1 dealing with alarm interrupts that
triggered this.
Current thinking is that this is a fairly benign pyzor bug. There is
apparently a pyzor patch or two that makes it go away.
FWIW, Pyzor has always done this, SA just didn't log it before.
Ah. There were some changes in 3.1 dealing with alarm interrupts that
triggered this.
Current thinking is that this is a fairly benign pyzor bug. There is
apparently a pyzor patch or two that makes it go away.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "James Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Latest and greated3.10...never saw these with 3.0.4..ODD
James
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:19:33 -0700
"Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which version of SA?
>
> > This is what I'm seeing:
> >
> > 6:00:16 homebox spamd[2311]: internal error
> > 6:00:16 homebox spamd[2311]: pyzor: che
Which version of SA?
> This is what I'm seeing:
>
> 6:00:16 homebox spamd[2311]: internal error
> 6:00:16 homebox spamd[2311]: pyzor: check failed: internal error
On Thursday 15 September 2005 10:11 am, Ronald I. Nutter wrote:
> I am trying to write a rule to block these based on subject line but
> keep getting regex errors. It seems to be related to trying to put in
> the [ character/symbol. Can someone provide an example of how they did
> it?
>
> Thanks,
Josh Trutwin wrote:
>From the UPGRADE file:
>
>"We do however recommend that you switch your MySQL tables over to
>InnoDB for better data integrity and multi user support. You can
>most often do this via a simple ALTER TABLE command, refer to the
>MySQL documentation for more information."
>
>Coo
Hey all!
This is what I'm seeing:
6:00:16 homebox spamd[2311]: internal error
6:00:16 homebox spamd[2311]: pyzor: check failed: internal error
Not all the time either..just once in a while. Anything I can do to
debug this? Thanks!
James
Just a heads up in case any of you aren't aware. There's an annoying
"auto-bcc" plugin for Microsoft Outlook that adds similar numbers after
the 'Re'.
So to a message titled "Blah" you'll get a reply titled: "Re[1]: Blah".
With the number increasing with every subsequent reply to same subjec
At 01:10 PM Thursday, 9/15/2005, Josh Trutwin wrote -=>
>From the UPGRADE file:
"We do however recommend that you switch your MySQL tables over to
InnoDB for better data integrity and multi user support. You can
most often do this via a simple ALTER TABLE command, refer to the
MySQL documentati
From the UPGRADE file:
"We do however recommend that you switch your MySQL tables over to
InnoDB for better data integrity and multi user support. You can
most often do this via a simple ALTER TABLE command, refer to the
MySQL documentation for more information."
Cool - is just an ALTER TABLE to
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 03:42:42PM -0400, Ronald I. Nutter wrote:
> # Check for bad Re: tag
> header BAD_RECOLON_TAG Subject =~ /\b"Re:"\b/i
>
> stopping email with something past the Re:. Is my concern valid and how
> do I allow the email to get through that has something after Re: ?
I assume y
Here is what I have crafted so far -
# Check for bad RE[ tag
header BAD_RE_TAG Subject =~ /\b"Re"\[\b/i
score BAD_RE_TAG 6.0
# Check for bad Re: tag
header BAD_RECOLON_TAG Subject =~ /\b"Re:"\b/i
score BAD_RECOLON_TAG 6.0
While the first rule should stop the cialis spam from coming through
that
Hi,
I'm having an issue with SA 3.1.0 freezing, it will run through a couple
of users (3 - 10) and then lockup.
The debug log shows
@40004329b9a03554bf84 [14009] dbg: config: Conf::SQL: executing SQL:
select preference, value from userpref where username =
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or userna
I would seriously take a shot at using the
latest 5.8.x ActivePerl build. I known the openhandhome site still recommends
using the older ActivePerl 5.6.1 release, but there are a number of bug fixes in
the 5.8.6 and 5.8.7 releases that impact SpamAssassin's
stability.
The last I discussed the
In your message regarding Re: 3.1.0 X-headers dated Thu, 15 Sep 2005
13:29:33 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea said that ...
>DCWO- Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > From: Mike Bostock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>Just gone from 3.1.0.rc1 -> 3.1.0 (14/9/05) Sendmail/Procmail MTAs
> >>The X-headers for SpamAssassin ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We recently needed to downgrade an underpowered solaris host to SA2.64
I start spamd with a max of 32 processes and some people get lots of
mail. Users fire off spamc via their .procmailrc
I'm now seeing a lot of
[ID 702911 mail.error] connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 12
Bowie Bailey wrote:
From: Mike Bostock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just gone from 3.1.0.rc1 -> 3.1.0 (14/9/05) Sendmail/Procmail MTAs
The X-headers for SpamAssassin are now appearing at the top of the
header instead of the bottom
It's a feature.
One that was in rc1 too (and I believe all of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rune Kristian Viken writes:
> On Wednesday 14 September 2005 18:34, Bret Miller wrote:
> >> We're in the need of checking parts of our outgoing email for
> >> spam (read: we've got unknown webmail users.. hugs lots of them,
> >> actually.. and some of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rosenbaum, Larry M. writes:
> I've just upgraded to the SA v3.1.0 release (Perl 5.8.5 on Solaris
> SPARC) and I've noticed a lot of "select returned error on server
> filehandle" messages in the log file. There is no further information
> on what par
I've just upgraded to the SA v3.1.0 release (Perl 5.8.5 on Solaris
SPARC) and I've noticed a lot of "select returned error on server
filehandle" messages in the log file. There is no further information
on what particular error occurred. They seem to happen whenever spamd
kills a child process.
From: Mike Bostock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Just gone from 3.1.0.rc1 -> 3.1.0 (14/9/05) Sendmail/Procmail MTAs
> The X-headers for SpamAssassin are now appearing at the top of the
> header instead of the bottom
>
> Is there a config option I have missed?
It's a feature.
>From the release a
Just gone from 3.1.0.rc1 -> 3.1.0 (14/9/05)
Sendmail/Procmail MTAs
The X-headers for SpamAssassin are now appearing at the top of the header
instead of the bottom
Is there a config option I have missed?
Thanks
--
Mike
At 11:11 AM 9/15/2005, Ronald I. Nutter wrote:
I am trying to write a rule to block these based on subject line but
keep getting regex errors. It seems to be related to trying to put in
the [ character/symbol. Can someone provide an example of how they did
it?
You'd need to escape any [ or ]
Preface the brackets with a backslash: \[ and \]
>>> "Ronald I. Nutter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9/15/2005
10:11 AM >>>
I am trying to write a rule to block these based on subject line but
keep getting regex errors. It seems to be related to trying to put in
the [ character/symbol. Can someone provid
I am trying to write a rule to block these based on subject line but
keep getting regex errors. It seems to be related to trying to put in
the [ character/symbol. Can someone provide an example of how they did
it?
Thanks,
Ron
mouss a écrit :
Thomas Deaton a écrit :
If a message comes in with something like this:
MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
the headername suggests this is an SA header. look at mailscanner
instead.
of course I meant "This is _not_ an Sa header".
At 08:29 AM 9/15/2005, Thomas Deaton wrote:
If a message comes in with something like this:
MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
SpamAssassin (score=31.068, required 5, autolearn=disabled,
UL_RESTUFFF 22.00, URI
Thomas Deaton a écrit :
If a message comes in with something like this:
MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
the headername suggests this is an SA header. look at mailscanner instead.
SpamAssassin (score=31.068, required 5, autolearn=disabled,
UL_RESTUFFF 2
On Thursday, September 15, 2005 at 12:17:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
> Hi,
> after downloading and installing ActivePerl 5.6.1.638 on a Windows2003
> box, and carefully following instructions on how to install SA (I have
> installed version 3.1.0), it fails when testing with:
> sp
yesterday spamd problems started.
3..0.2 invoked via spamc & procmail on mandrake 10.
what's happening is a spamd child process seems to go into a loop consuming more and more memory.
this morning when i came in spamd was not running.
no changes at all on this machine.
been running fine for months
If a message comes
in with something like this:
MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
SpamAssassin (score=31.068, required 5,
autolearn=disabled,
UL_RESTUFFF 22.00, URIBL_AB_SURBL 2.01, URIBL_OB_SURBL
2.00,
URIBL_SBL 0.63, URIBL_SC_SURBL 3.90, U
You probably have some sort of configuration error in talking to your DNS,
just from the messages.
However, I think you have also found a bug in SA. You might consider
opening a BZ ticket.
Loren
- Original Message -
From:
marcantonio
To: users@spamassassin
Hi,
after downloading and installing ActivePerl 5.6.1.638 on a Windows2003
box, and carefully following instructions on how to install SA (I have
installed version 3.1.0), it fails when testing with:
spamassassin -D < sample-spam.txt
with the following error:
//
D:\Mail-SpamAssassin-3.1
We recently needed to downgrade an underpowered solaris host to SA2.64
I start spamd with a max of 32 processes and some people get lots of mail.
Users fire off spamc via their .procmailrc
I'm now seeing a lot of
[ID 702911 mail.error] connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 127.0.0.1 failed,
retrying (#3
> The number of messages like below has increased. Unfortunately, they are
> not reported to SpamCop fast enough for SURBL to handle them Has
anyone
> created some sort of filter to identify this type of messages ??
Yes.
Loren
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Maurice Lucas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello,
I have a problem with both 3.1.0-rc1 and 3.1.0-rc2.
Some off my mail is checked by SA and marked as spam but gets an extra LF
causing the rest of my tools to ignore the X-Spam-Status header field.
This is a s
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 18:34, Bret Miller wrote:
>> We're in the need of checking parts of our outgoing email for
>> spam (read: we've got unknown webmail users.. hugs lots of them,
>> actually.. and some of them have this annoying habit of sending
>> nigeria spam)
>>
>> [considering netw
39 matches
Mail list logo
