Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
been updated.
Of note: One rule which has been incorporated into SpamAssassin 3.1.0
has been moved to the new 70_sare_obfu_x31.cf file. Systems that are
remaining on 3.0.x or earlier should obtain this file. No need for
RDJ on t
Chris wrote:
On Saturday 01 October 2005 09:34 pm, JamesDR wrote:
Chris wrote:
I may have missed a thread on this but is there a reason that SA is now
placing its tags above the headers:
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Spam-Seen: Tokens 251
X-Spam-New: Tokens 446
X-Spam-Remote: Host localhost.localdomain
Using SA 3.1 which I just updated to this evening and have seen a few errors
in my syslog which I don't quite understand, for instance:
Oct 1 22:02:07 cpollock spamd[26411]: prefork: child states: B
Oct 1 22:02:07 cpollock spamd[26411]: prefork: server reached --max-clients
setting, consider
Hello, spamassassiners.
SA 3.1.0 in my Debian BOX runs very cool. I love SA. :)
BTW, I found two strange rulesets.
WEIRD_QUOTING and OBSCURED_EMAIL .
These rulesets hit almost all Japanese ISO-2022-JP mails (not only
spams but also hams) and a few Chinese GB2312 spams.
I haven't ever seen wester
On Saturday 01 October 2005 09:34 pm, JamesDR wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > I may have missed a thread on this but is there a reason that SA is now
> > placing its tags above the headers:
> >
> > X-Spam-Virus: No
> > X-Spam-Seen: Tokens 251
> > X-Spam-New: Tokens 446
> > X-Spam-Remote: Host localhos
From: "JamesDR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chris wrote:
I may have missed a thread on this but is there a reason that SA is now
placing its tags above the headers:
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Spam-Seen: Tokens 251
X-Spam-New: Tokens 446
X-Spam-Remote: Host localhost.localdomain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: Sp
Chris wrote:
I may have missed a thread on this but is there a reason that SA is now
placing its tags above the headers:
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Spam-Seen: Tokens 251
X-Spam-New: Tokens 446
X-Spam-Remote: Host localhost.localdomain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on
[s
I may have missed a thread on this but is there a reason that SA is now
placing its tags above the headers:
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Spam-Seen: Tokens 251
X-Spam-New: Tokens 446
X-Spam-Remote: Host localhost.localdomain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on
cpollock.lo
Gerard Earley a écrit :
I have recently changed the user that runs my spamassassin 3.0.4 from
root to spamd.
It runs fine but does anyone know how to convert the mysql based bayes
info that was recorded for the root user over to the spamd user.
How about using mysql in a script?
On Samstag, 1. Oktober 2005 21:42 Gerard Earley wrote:
> I have recently changed the user that runs my spamassassin 3.0.4 from
> root to spamd.
> It runs fine but does anyone know how to convert the mysql based
> bayes info that was recorded for the root user over to the spamd
> user.
I guess: cop
I have recently changed the user that runs my spamassassin 3.0.4 from
root to spamd.
It runs fine but does anyone know how to convert the mysql based bayes
info that was recorded for the root user over to the spamd user.
Many thanks
G
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Is there a piece of documentation devoted specifically to using bayes
in SA? I'm a long time SA user but have always avoided the bayes
angle because it always seems too complicated to learn to use.
On Freitag, 30. September 2005 17:48 Matt Kettler wrote:
> > When using "spamassassin -D -r" I can see that the user bayes is
> > used correctly.
>
> Yes, the spamassassin script doesn't enforce any security rules, and
> will accept any parameter in user_prefs, even admin settings. This is
> becaus
13 matches
Mail list logo
