> On Donnerstag, 22. September 2005 22:24 email builder wrote:
> > How so? I can't believe you don't hear me when I say for the 100th
> > time that services like ours that have a lot of users who expect to
> > communicate with hotmail users cannot use an RBL in the MTA if it
> > lists hotmail.
>
--On Friday, September 23, 2005 9:54 AM -0500 Herb Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have been using dev builds and each RC for
a month or more and love it. It runs smoother
and with fewer oddities than 3.04 etc.
I have been on 3.10 since a couple of days after
the release (it only took tha
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:57:36 -0400
Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like SA is being invoked as root, which causes it to fall back
> to nobody.. Nobody doesn't have permissions to it's home dir (and
> should not) so it fails.
>
> That should have been a problem for you in 3.0.4, but
Matthew Lenz wrote:
can SA read berkley db hash:'s like postfix does? something like
trusted_networks = ... 123.123.121. ... hash:/var/lib/pop-before-smtp/hosts
if so that would be very cool cuz just as that hash allows people to
temporarily use postfix as a relay (it removes the entries from
can SA read berkley db hash:'s like postfix does? something like
trusted_networks = ... 123.123.121. ... hash:/var/lib/pop-before-smtp/hosts
if so that would be very cool cuz just as that hash allows people to
temporarily use postfix as a relay (it removes the entries from the has
after 30minu
Matthew Lenz wrote:
1. do you control the IPs that your dial-up users are connecting from
no.. they all connect from various isp's.
3. can you obtain enough pain medication to get them all to convert to
auth'd SMTP connections?
heh I thought about implementing it .. maybe i still can at s
sorry for the top post.. OE sucks. thanks for the packages Duncan :) i
noticed that you don't use your people.debian.org location for packages
(atleast that I saw) .. you could also stick em there I'm sure people would
test em if it was easy to track them using apt. When they are in
experi
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:08:40PM -0500, Matthew Lenz wrote:
> it makes me wonder if maybe the debian guys messed with the rankings for
> stuff from the URL block list matches. I'll have an email come through
> that hits like 3 url block lists ..but gets an ALL_TRUSTED which cancels
> them out.
Matthew Lenz wrote:
ok. i think i got it. what parts of the headers does spamassassin look at
for trusted_networks? my guess is that if there are any untrusted ip's
mentioned in the received: headers it marks it as untrusted?
Yeah, it trusts each received header starting from the top until it
Matthew Lenz wrote:
ok. i think i got it. what parts of the headers does spamassassin look
at for trusted_networks? my guess is that if there are any untrusted
ip's mentioned in the received: headers it marks it as untrusted?
Yeah, it trusts each received header starting from the top until it
ok. i think i got it. what parts of the headers does spamassassin look at
for trusted_networks? my guess is that if there are any untrusted ip's
mentioned in the received: headers it marks it as untrusted? what about my
pop-before-smtp users? they'll be relaying through the public ip sending
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> My only question there was whether SA will implicitly trust the
> machine it is running on. After all, if you can't trust yourself, who
> can you trust? :)
If you explicitly set trusted_networks, then no, it won't SA will only trust the
hosts you tell it.
If you don't ha
Matt Kettler wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ok, so here is what I see as far as the mail path:
- Sent from 24.249.175.230 ... untrusted
- Received by 68.99.120.79 ... trusted
- Received by pulsar.lfa.com ... untrusted (unless SA defaults the
local machine)
If pulsar.lfa.com is untrusted, a
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Michael Barnes wrote:
I prefer:
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM-Score-_HITS_]
==
Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 967-7816
WestNet Internet Services of Westchester
http://www.westnet.com/
Matthew Lenz wrote:
any way to tell what it considers to be a trusted_network? we have 5
You can run a message through spamassassin -D to find out. In a nated
environment it's going to guess wrong though, guaranteed.
private segments and all those servers use postfix with a 'relayhost'
any way to tell what it considers to be a trusted_network? we have 5
private segments and all those servers use postfix with a 'relayhost' which
resolves to the private ip address of our smtp server. all of our users
also use this smtp server for sending mail from their desktops. they all
n
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> > Ok, so here is what I see as far as the mail path:
> >
> > - Sent from 24.249.175.230 ... untrusted
> > - Received by 68.99.120.79 ... trusted
> > - Received by pulsar.lfa.com ... untrusted (unless SA defaults the
> > l
Matthew Lenz wrote:
its _not_ set.. shouldn't that mean there are no trusted networks?..
unless the debian package is patched some how.
It must be set. If it's not SpamAssassin has to guess at which
networks/hosts are yours.
p.s. actually i didn't think ALL_TRUSTED had to do with that sett
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 03:43:23PM -0400, Robert Swan wrote:
> Hello all, I am wondering if anyone knows how to get the score of the
> SPAM in the subject line with the rewrite. Right now I rewrite the
> subject line with [SPAM] at the beginning but it would be helpful to
> see the score in the sam
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Ok, so here is what I see as far as the mail path:
>
> - Sent from 24.249.175.230 ... untrusted
> - Received by 68.99.120.79 ... trusted
> - Received by pulsar.lfa.com ... untrusted (unless SA defaults the
> local machine)
>
If pulsar.lfa.com is untrusted, all headers w
its _not_ set.. shouldn't that mean there are no trusted networks?.. unless
the debian package is patched some how.
-Matt
p.s. actually i didn't think ALL_TRUSTED had to do with that setting.. i
though maybe it only showed up if it didn't pass through any of the rbl
relays.
- Original M
From: NFN Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> From there, I've done more tinkering, but still not getting the
> results I want. Another try on raw data.
>
> Starting with settings in sa-mimedefang.cf:
>
> > # IP addresses of trusted hosts -- use these instead of whitelisting our
domains
> > tru
Hi,
I see a lot of forking ever since I switched to 3.1. Is there a
way to tell the maximum and the average number of forks reached?
If so, would it be more efficient in terms of speed to switch
back to the old method or the difference is really negligible
up to a certain number of forks?
Thnx,
Hi all,
I posted yday about SA and how it does not seem to work at all for me... but I got no replies. :(
spamassassin --lint seems to show no errors but I am not sure if qmail and qmail-scanner and SA are all communicating with each other.
I am flooded with Spam and do not know what to do.
Ple
Przemek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have spamassassin-3.1.0 runing as daemon from slackware-rc-script
> included with sa. My sa work with qmail-scanner.
>
> Before updating form 3.0.4 everything was good, but now on 3.1.0
> after reciving mail i see this in logs:
Looks like SA is being invoked as root, w
Matthew Lenz wrote:
it makes me wonder if maybe the debian guys messed with the rankings for
stuff from the URL block list matches. I'll have an email come through
that hits like 3 url block lists ..but gets an ALL_TRUSTED which cancels
them out.
You may want to consider properly setting your
Robert Swan wrote:
Hello all, I am wondering if anyone knows how to get the score of the
SPAM in the subject line with the rewrite. Right now I rewrite the
subject line with [SPAM] at the beginning but it would be helpful to see
the score in the same place. Also I attach the original e-mail an
NFN Smith wrote:
Thus, in the results that I'm getting, I don't have something quite
right in the combination of definitions between trusted_networks and
whitelist_from_rcvd. From what I've figured out so far, I seem to be
close, but I'm missing something small.
Did you remember to restart y
Bowie Bailey wrote:
whitelist_from_rcvd
You can use this instead of whitelist_from. It requires a bit
more setup, but it is immune to the forgery problems of
whitelist_from. Use this to list each valid domainname/mailserver
combination. Note that this requires a correct interna
Hello all, I am wondering if anyone knows how to get the
score of the SPAM in the subject line with the rewrite. Right now I rewrite the
subject line with [SPAM] at the beginning but it would be helpful to see the
score in the same place. Also I attach the original e-mail and I use spamass
Bowie Bailey wrote:
It's definitely coming from an external network.
Yes, I understand that your servers are separated in different IP
blocks and in different facilities, but that is irrelevant. When I
say that the email is coming from an external network, what I mean is
that it is origin
Hi,
I have spamassassin-3.1.0 runing as daemon from slackware-rc-script
included with sa. My sa work with qmail-scanner.
Before updating form 3.0.4 everything was good, but now on 3.1.0
after reciving mail i see this in logs:
Sep 23 20:32:33 nasa spamd[19864]: spamd: server started on port 783/t
it makes me wonder if maybe the debian guys messed with the rankings for
stuff from the URL block list matches. I'll have an email come through
that hits like 3 url block lists ..but gets an ALL_TRUSTED which cancels
them out.
-Matt
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:04 -0400, Fred wrote:
> I have been se
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Indeed nobody have /nonexistent as home directory
>
> My problem is that I did not change anything from the 3.0.2 setup and
> now the system does not work as it did. The .spamassassin file is in
> /root and always has been. The question is how to make it work again.
T
On 9/23/05 2:37 PM, "Matthew Yette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After upgrading 3.0.4 to 3.1.0, I get this in maillog:
>
> Sep 23 14:32:05 MAILER-02 spamd[26236]: spamd: checking message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for qscand:511
> Sep 23 14:32:05 MAILER-02 spamd[26236]: Can't call method "string"
Indeed nobody have /nonexistent as home directory
My problem is that I did not change anything from the 3.0.2 setup and
now the system does not work as it did. The .spamassassin file is in
/root and always has been. The question is how to make it work again.
==John ffitch
After upgrading 3.0.4 to 3.1.0, I get this in maillog:
Sep 23 14:32:05 MAILER-02 spamd[26236]: spamd: checking message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for qscand:511
Sep 23 14:32:05 MAILER-02 spamd[26236]: Can't call method "string" on an
undefined value at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Dn
Matthew Yette wrote:
> For those who went from 3.0.4 to the latest release candidate, would
> you say it's a worthy upgrade? Where do you see the largest benefits?
> Is it overall a good move if you're currently pretty satisfied with
> 3.0.4?
>
> Matt
I love the new ReplaceTags plugin, I would rec
Run spamassassin --lint on this server and fix the errors you have and then
once all is running well, go back and try rulesDuJour. You'll get better
results for sure :)
Thijs Koetsier | Exception wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No, I did not.
> I just re-installed Rules Du Jour and am using Spamassassin 3 on t
I have been seeing a large increase in spam overall, I wouldn't be so sure
if it's anything you caused.
Matthew Lenz wrote:
> so much spam is getting in since I switched to sarge. anyone else
> have this problem? it looks like the tests are working but stuff
> that is so obviously spam is get
Hello,
in order to fix my Perl module trouble, I tried to supply PERL5LIB in
the Makefile.
PERL5LIB=/usr/local/share/amavisd-new/i386-linux perl Makefile.PL
works fine, now the correct version of Net::DNS is found - but only in
the makefile. spamd still contains the wrong use lib, thus resulting
> For those who went from 3.0.4 to the latest release
> candidate, would you say it's a worthy upgrade? Where do you
> see the largest benefits? Is it overall a good move if you're
> currently pretty satisfied with 3.0.4?
I can't speak for other platforms, but for Windows users, I'd rate this
is a
so much spam is getting in since I switched to sarge. anyone else have
this problem? it looks like the tests are working but stuff that is so
obviously spam is getting right through.
if i add -D to /etc/default/spamassassin:OPTIONS will the output go to
the syslog?
-Matt
* Chris Lear wrote (09/23/05 10:34):
> I'm running a reasonably small site-wide spamassassin, and I use a
> site-side bayes db. Spamassassin runs as the user spamd.
>
> I noticed that I got spam last night with no BAYES_XX markup. I looked
> into it this morning, and discovered that the bayes db o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am getting
>
> Sep 21 09:34:20 snout spamd[28958]: mkdir /nonexistent: Permission denied at
> /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.4/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 1467
> Sep 21 09:34:20 snout spamd[28958]: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp
> lockfile
> /nonexistent/.spamassass
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Joerg Hartmann wrote:
> I used http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSpamdInPostfix
> for an howto to integrate SA within postfix.
>
> In this wiki-article there is a command line option "-f" for spamc
> which i can not found in the manpage. So i d
Found the problem. Should have toubleshoot myself more before posting.
Irina
=
- Original Message -
From: "Irina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: FUZZY rules
> Hello all,
>
> I can not figure out why I have these errors when running
> From: Matthew Yette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For those who went from 3.0.4 to the latest release
> candidate, would you say it's a worthy upgrade? Where do you
> see the largest benefits? Is it overall a good move if you're
> currently pretty satisfied with 3.0.4?
>
3.10 is not just at
On 9/23/05, Matthew Yette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those who went from 3.0.4 to the latest release candidate, would you say
> it's a worthy upgrade? Where do you see the largest benefits? Is it overall
> a good move if you're currently pretty satisfied with 3.0.4?
I've only done this so fa
For those who went from 3.0.4 to the latest release candidate, would you say
it's a worthy upgrade? Where do you see the largest benefits? Is it overall
a good move if you're currently pretty satisfied with 3.0.4?
Matt
--
Matthew Yette
Senior Engineer (NOC/Operations)
M.A. Polce Consulting
315-83
Hi,
No, I did not.
I just re-installed Rules Du Jour and am using Spamassassin 3 on this server
since I installed it.
Cheers,
Thijs
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 23 september 2005 15:46
> Aan: users@spamassassin.apache.org
From: NFN Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>>X-Spam-Score: 6.87 (**) (required=4)
> >>>tests=CLICK_BELOW,EXCUSE_3,FREE_CONSULTATION,MAILTO_TO_REMOVE,
> >>>NO_OBLIGATION,ONE_TIME_MAILING,REMOVE_IN_QUOTES,REMOVE_SUBJ,RISK_FREE
> >
> > I don't see ALL_TRUSTED
Did you just move from 2.64 or earlier? It looks like you have some
pre-3.0-only rules files. SOme of these appear to be standard SA rules
files.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "Thijs Koetsier | Exception" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 5:02 AM
Subject:
Hey all...
I'm getting the following error in my maillogs:
Sep 23 09:06:45 quark spamd[86481]: Use of uninitialized value in numeric
lt (<) at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/IO/Socket/SSL.pm line 242.
Here are my command line args:
spamd_flags="-D -u spamd -i -A 65.125.237.232,65.125.2
Hello all,
I can not figure out why I have these errors when running
'spamassassin --lint'. It complains about FUZZY rules:
-
config: warning: score set for non-existent rule FUZZY_GUARANTEE
config: warning: score set for non-existent rule FUZZY_BILLION
config: warning: score set
Hi all,
I'm using spamassassin 3 with rules du jour.
Since a few days, when my rules du jour is runned by cron, spamassassin
won't lint the rules anymore. I've looked into this problem on various
sites, but didn't find a working answer, so I re-installed rules du jour but
still have the same prob
Steven,
> i am looking for a way to modify my subject line so that the spam assassin
> hits show in the subjectline but since i am useing amavisd-new i think it
> has to occure in the amavisd.conf file.
Unfortunately this is not available off the shelf. The only modification
to the Subject header
On Donnerstag, 22. September 2005 22:24 email builder wrote:
> How so? I can't believe you don't hear me when I say for the 100th
> time that services like ours that have a lot of users who expect to
> communicate with hotmail users cannot use an RBL in the MTA if it
> lists hotmail.
Larry said i
I'm running a reasonably small site-wide spamassassin, and I use a
site-side bayes db. Spamassassin runs as the user spamd.
I noticed that I got spam last night with no BAYES_XX markup. I looked
into it this morning, and discovered that the bayes db only has 47 spam
messages in it (nspam from sa-l
I am getting
Sep 21 09:34:20 snout spamd[28958]: mkdir /nonexistent: Permission denied at
/usr/local/share/perl/5.8.4/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 1467
Sep 21 09:34:20 snout spamd[28958]: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp
lockfile
/nonexistent/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.lock.snout.codemist.c
Hello,
i just installed spamassassin on my mailserver, which runs postfix.
I used http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSpamdInPostfix
for an howto to integrate SA within postfix.
In this wiki-article there is a command line option "-f" for spamc
which i can not found in the manpage. So
* Nigel Frankcom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi All,
>
> This may be old news, but... anyone using abuseseat.org in their RBL's
> should probably remove it. I had it running here in my main server
> config (so not an SA issue) and it's been 550ing every incoming email.
> A quick check of the domain sho
62 matches
Mail list logo
