>
> Yes; it detected SA...
> ***
> Content/Virus Scanners installed on your System
>
> fprot=/usr/local/bin/f-prot
> fast_spamassassin=/usr/bin/spamc
> ***
>
> So if I might go ahead and install it; after work h
>
> Yes; it detected SA...
> ***
> Content/Virus Scanners installed on your System
>
> fprot=/usr/local/bin/f-prot
> fast_spamassassin=/usr/bin/spamc
> ***
>
> So if I might go ahead and install it; after work h
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part
of the installation process? This is probably the single most common
misconfiguration.
The first time the question might be asked is well into the install
pro
jdow wrote:
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part
>> of the installation process? This is probably the single most common
>> misconfiguration.
>
> The first time the question might be asked is well into the install
> process.
How
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian S. Powell wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your
trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well.
I have been running this software for two years, have read through
the docs on cou
Brian S. Powell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>>
>> I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your
>> trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well.
>
> I have been running this software for two years, have read through
> the docs on countless ocassio
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your
trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well.
I have been running this software for two years, have read through the docs
on countless ocassions, and never discovered the existen
Brian S. Powell wrote:
> Could this have something to do with the fact that these seem to all be
getting through via some MailMan mailing list "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" addresses?
I have a system-wide entry of:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] osc.edu
It may be the Sender: header that is b
I'm curious to know what this part of the section means:
- Razor2: depends on service that is not always free (disabled in
init.pre)
There seems to be a lot of ambiguity around Cloudmarks Razor servers,
and their service policy (found at
http://www.cloudmark.com/policies/razor/).
However
I've been running Spamassassin now for a couple of years and it has been a
great help. Recently though, I've begun coming across some messages that
are blatantly spam, but are being tagged as "user_in_whitelist" and let
through.
I understand the whitelist syntax pretty well and can guarantee th
Good evening, all,
This is a (shortened) repost of a sincere request to anyone using
any of the sa-blacklist files. The URLs to those files have changed;
please update your URLs in any automated download scripts. if you're
using RulesDuJour, please get the latest version as Chris has already
William Stearns wrote:
I see you've found a bug in Rules du Jour! Bill is returning a 302
http response code which indicates a temporary URL change. However,
RDJ is incorrectly interpreting the 302 as a "not changed".
Short term solution is to upgrade to the new RDJ with the current URL
as
Shwetar (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
Yes; it detected SA...
***
Content/Virus Scanners installed on your System
fprot=/usr/local/bin/f-prot
fast_spamassassin=/usr/bin/spamc
***
So if I might go ahead and inst
Good evening, Chris,
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Chris Thielen wrote:
Aha!
I see you've found a bug in Rules du Jour! Bill is returning a 302 http
response code which indicates a temporary URL change. However, RDJ is
incorrectly interpreting the 302 as a "not changed".
Short term solution is to u
Yes; it detected SA...
***
Content/Virus Scanners installed on your System
fprot=/usr/local/bin/f-prot
fast_spamassassin=/usr/bin/spamc
***
So if I might go ahead and install it; after work hours and check if
Shwetar (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
Jim,
I dont see any mention of SA in the logcheck monitored logs.
On checkin up qmail-scanner-queue.pl... I realised that...
my @scanner_array=();
so I changed that to my @scanner_array=("spamassassin");
Also my @scanners_default=("fprot_scanner","perlscan_sc
Jim,
I dont see any mention of SA in the logcheck monitored logs.
On checkin up qmail-scanner-queue.pl... I realised that...
my @scanner_array=();
so I changed that to my @scanner_array=("spamassassin");
Also my @scanners_default=("fprot_scanner","perlscan_scanner");
so I changed that to my @sca
Yes- I would rather have correct results than just results.
Okay, so the problem is with my MTA moving the Return-Path header below
the Received headers. It's breaking spamassassin's ability to check
perfectly compliant SPF records. I'm using stock versions of sendmail
8.13 on all my boxes, so
Ben Lentz wrote:
_You_ are _welcome_.
Get it moved? - Hmmm... Ala-kazamm! - Oh, that didn't work. Okay, so
magic isn't going to get it moved, and I'm all out of ideas.
I can only suggest starting another thread here or "somewhere else
applicable" that asks "this is the software I'm using, wh
Shwetar (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
Hi Matte,
Yeah I already have qmail-scanner1.20 up and running... and I have logcheck
installed which keeps mailing me periodically the scanner log contents...
Sep 29 13:58:18 myserver qmail-scanner[27731]:
Policy:Bad_MIME_Break:RC:0(212.241.78.57): 0.5285
Hi Matte,
Yeah I already have qmail-scanner1.20 up and running... and I have logcheck installed which keeps mailing me periodically the scanner log contents...
Sep 29 13:58:18 myserver qmail-scanner[27731]: Policy:Bad_MIME_Break:RC:0(212.241.78.57): 0.528588 3370 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECT
Heh, That was supposed to be a joke; not very funny, I guess.
- Original Message -
*From:* Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 02:57:10 PM
*To:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Ben Lentz wr
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Ben Lentz wrote:
> SPF stuff. Technology vendors everywhere are telling me that if I
> implement SPF and DK that the entire plannet will be spam free.
Just FWIW:
Those technology vendors are confused. Neither SPF nor DK are anti-spam
technologies. They'
_You_ are _welcome_.
Get it moved? - Hmmm... Ala-kazamm! - Oh, that didn't work. Okay, so
magic isn't going to get it moved, and I'm all out of ideas.
I still don't understand why I used to get SPF_HELO_PASSes with 3.0.4
and I don't with 3.1. The world hasn't changed, just my SA version. I
g
From: Mike Spamassassin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From: Mike Spamassassin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> This is working pretty well so far.
> >> Thanks for you help with this.
> >>
> >> I would like to enhance it to cater for the situations where I am
> >> not in the "To" address (e.g. I
Ben Lentz wrote:
Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
_thanks_. ;)
The return-path header is in the wrong spot. It should be the very
first line of the message. Get it moved and you'll be set.
Daryl
Title: Re: SA not workin
On 9/29/05 2:07 PM, "Shwetar (sent by Nabble.com)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I am actually workin on something that has already been setup; I mean somebody already set this thing up and then left. So I am delaing with Spam right now.
I have everything up and run
Ok, I am actually workin on something that has already been setup; I mean somebody already set this thing up and then left. So I am delaing with Spam right now.
I have everything up and running... I also ran the tests with the sample spam and it seems that SA assigns some points to it... but howe
Bowie
> That will match a name in quotes, but the real name is not
> required to be quoted if there are no spaces or odd characters.
>
> To: Herb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ... is a perfectly good header and will not match your pattern.
>
> It will also not match a missing real name field, whi
Aha!
I see you've found a bug in Rules du Jour! Bill is returning a 302 http
response code which indicates a temporary URL change. However, RDJ is
incorrectly interpreting the 302 as a "not changed".
Short term solution is to upgrade to the new RDJ with the current URL as
you've stated. I ne
Uh, I believe it did. The test.eml file I attached was 2733 bytes long.
The body portion of the email read "test", only 4 bytes by my count. The
remainder of data is all headers.
I'm hoping you're opening it in a text editor, and not a mail client.
- Original Message -
*From:* <[EMAIL
Ben Lentz wrote:
> Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
The version you attach has no headers.
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
Shwetar (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have all the bits and pieces up for gettin mail and also for running
> SA. Also I get no erros on spamassassin --lint... but I have still not
> been able to filter even ONE Spam out of my mail.
>
> Dont know why qmail and SA are failin to communicat
From: Herb Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Try this (with your names of course):
>
> header __HM_USER To =~
> /"[^"]*"\s*<(herb|martin)[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/i
> header __HM_REALNAME To =~ /"[^"]*(herb|hm|martin)[^"]*"\s* meta HM_NAME_MISMATCH __HM_USER &&
From: NFN Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> From the beginning of the thread, I noted that I was running 2.6x,
> but that may have gotten missed.
It was probably just overlooked as it is easy to forget which options
were supported on which versions. I just didn't take into account
that the opt
Here you go, the file has been _attached_.
- Original Message -
*From:* "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* 09/29/2005 12:32:08 PM
*To:* Ben Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Cc:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* SPF and Upgrade to SA 3.1
Ben Lentz wrote:
I'm lost. The
Ben Lentz wrote:
I'm lost. The email I received contains the header: "Return-Path:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so why would it be saying "spf: cannot get
Envelope-From, cannot use SPF"?
Usually it's a case of the header not being present during processing
and being added afterward. If it's present w
Hi,
I have all the bits and pieces up for gettin mail and also for running SA. Also I get no erros on spamassassin --lint... but I have still not been able to filter even ONE Spam out of my mail.
Dont know why qmail and SA are failin to communicate; but SA is not doing its job.
Can anyone of yo
I have Net::DNS 0.53_01 right now; it doesn't seem to have fixed the problem,
unfortunately. 0.53 had other issues, there was a minor typo that was fixed in
0.53_01, along with another persistent TCP problem:
Fix rt.cpan.org 13922
Fixed a problem with persistent TCP sockets which was int
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote:
> 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?
I'm afraid I don't know what `the maximum and the average number of
forks reached' means. Maxima and minima are set b
Alvaro Graves wrote:
> Hi, I have a postfix+courier+mysql configuration. Now I'm trying to
> install spamassassin, but when I start it, uses almost all the cpu. What
> files should I look ?
SA can be very CPU intensive. If you're seeing excessive CPU load you can take
one of several measures.
1)
I think I now see the problem. The url
to retrieve the blacklist-uri has been changed, and this is reflected in
version 1.24. I also see there is a change form random.cf. The
interesting thing I am not sure of….is why System B does not reflect the
changes of version 1.24, but was till do
Try this (with your names of course):
header __HM_USER To =~
/"[^"]*"\s*<(herb|martin)[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/i
header __HM_REALNAME To =~ /"[^"]*(herb|hm|martin)[^"]*"\s*
Hi, I have a postfix+courier+mysql configuration. Now I'm trying to
install spamassassin, but when I start it, uses almost all the cpu. What
files should I look ?
Thanks in advance
--
Saludos,
AG
--
Alvaro Graves Fuenzalida - agraves [EMA
On 9/29/05 10:35 AM, "Dan Horne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Setting up a new mailserver on FreeBSD 5.4 using postfix and maildrop
> which calls spamc. So far it is working like this: All users are
> virtual and need per-user filtering. Postfix and maildrop get user
> information from a mysql
On Thursday 29 September 2005 08:35, Dan Horne wrote:
> Setting up a new mailserver on FreeBSD 5.4 using postfix and maildrop
> which calls spamc. So far it is working like this: All users are
> virtual and need per-user filtering. Postfix and maildrop get user
> information from a mysql db, so on
Setting up a new mailserver on FreeBSD 5.4 using postfix and maildrop
which calls spamc. So far it is working like this: All users are
virtual and need per-user filtering. Postfix and maildrop get user
information from a mysql db, so once postfix passes the email to
maildrop:
1) maildrop calls sp
While checking RDJ on my systems. I noticed, blacklist-uri
last updated on 9.21.2005 on two of my systems, and on my third system, it is
current as of today. The version of RDJ I am running on all three systems
is 1.21. I know there is a 1.24, but I would like to get this working
again be
> From: David Birnbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I see in various archives that this might be related to a
> Net::DNS bug about persistent sockets that was supposedly
> fixed at some point. But perhaps not.
> Anyone else figure out where this is coming from?
>
> This is under Solaris 2.8/SP
Howdy. I upgraded to 3.1.0 very recently, and am getting this every so often:
Error creating a DNS resolver socket: Permission denied at
/opt/siteperl/5.6.1/siteperl/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm line 202
I see in various archives that this might be related to a Net::DNS bug about
p
I used the second option and had a couple of problems.
First problem was quickly solved; double underscores needed to stop the
header rules adding to the score.
Second problem is that the "blank" name is scoring the same as if it were
the wrong name.
> From: Mike Spamassassin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
What we do is control this on a frontend server, relay through
spamassassin (or not), and eventually deliver to the mailbox server.
Your incoming MX can accept mail, and deliver to different teirs of SA
running on separate boxes, and then deliver to each of your customers
from there. You would
Does anyone know if
it's possible to set a database property that will allow us to use different
rulesets based on the domain of the recipient. Basically I need to have
certain keywords flag with different scores based on the type of company that is
receiving the email.
If someone has a
I'm lost. The email I received contains the header: "Return-Path:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so why would it be saying "spf: cannot get
Envelope-From, cannot use SPF"?
I appreciate your patience. What appeared to be something that broke in
a SA version upgrade is not looking more like a FUBAR in my
It appears that this (or similar) has been see by others but I'll give my 2p worth
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4594
Sep 28 20:16:53 mx1 spamd[25801]: prefork: syswrite(9) failed,
retrying... at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/SpamdForkScaling.pm
line 554.
Sep
55 matches
Mail list logo
