Re: Some rule files' PGP signatures are reported as "bad"

2005-10-02 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello Ralph, Sunday, October 2, 2005, 5:37:59 AM, you wrote: RS> first I want to thank you for keeping up all the good work and RS> updating the rule files. Unfortunately, some of the PGP signatures RS> don't seem to match their rule files (i.e. 70_sare_genlsubj.cf.sig, RS> 70_sare_header.cf.sig)

Re: Other spamd errors

2005-10-02 Thread Chris
On Sunday 02 October 2005 04:30 pm, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > Chris wrote: > > Oct 2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: select returned error > > on server filehandle: > > Oct 2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: server successfully > > spawned child process, pid 712 > > Oct 2 13:08

Re: Other spamd errors

2005-10-02 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Chris wrote: I'm seeing this spamd error now in my syslog and I haven't a clue as to what it means. Could someone possibly assist? Oct 2 13:08:47 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: child states: BI Oct 2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: handled cleanup of child pid 30717 due to SIGCHLD

Re: SA tags above header info

2005-10-02 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Chris wrote: Something is very odd then, I have the domainkeys plugin commented out. Whether or not you're using the DomainKeys plugin makes no difference regarding header placement. Tags in ham are placed above the header info while tags for spam are placed in the usual place. It'll ap

Re: SA tags above header info

2005-10-02 Thread JamesDR
Chris wrote: [snip] Something is very odd then, I have the domainkeys plugin commented out. Tags in ham are placed above the header info while tags for spam are placed in the usual place. One other question, what/where is the --max-clients setting? I've observed an error telling me it n

Other spamd errors

2005-10-02 Thread Chris
I'm seeing this spamd error now in my syslog and I haven't a clue as to what it means. Could someone possibly assist? Oct  2 13:08:47 cpollock spamd[28098]: prefork: child states: BI Oct  2 13:08:48 cpollock spamd[28098]: spamd: handled cleanup of child pid 30717 due to SIGCHLD Oct  2 13:08:4

Re: SA tags above header info

2005-10-02 Thread Chris
On Saturday 01 October 2005 11:34 pm, JamesDR wrote: > 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-Sp

Some rule files' PGP signatures are reported as "bad"

2005-10-02 Thread Ralph Seichter
Hi, first I want to thank you for keeping up all the good work and updating the rule files. Unfortunately, some of the PGP signatures don't seem to match their rule files (i.e. 70_sare_genlsubj.cf.sig, 70_sare_header.cf.sig), and Matt's Key 0x1129F0D3 used for signing evilnumbers.cf has expired.

Re: best practise on learning spam

2005-10-02 Thread Michael Monnerie
On Freitag, 30. September 2005 23:36 mouss wrote: >>I have an IMAP folder with 1500 spams. I convert it to a mbox format > why? >     sa-learn --spam $dir > works sa-learn does not report to the online databases dcc/pyzor/razor. If you refer to sa-learn against IMAP: How to do it with cyrus? How

Re: [SARE] rules file updates

2005-10-02 Thread jdow
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Robert Menschel wrote: >> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have >> been updated. > > Can someone mention whats the difference between: > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf > and > http://www.rulesemporiu

Re: [SARE] rules file updates

2005-10-02 Thread Loren Wilton
> >>Whitelist appears to be a newer file regardless of what the headers > >>say. It includes more sites in its whitelist. It appears whitelist_rcvd > >>is obsolete. It's not mentioned on the SARE Rules page. > > > > These were announced on the list about a week ago. Whitelist_from_rcvd.cf > > is NE

Re: [SARE] rules file updates

2005-10-02 Thread Cami
Loren Wilton wrote: Robert Menschel wrote: Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have been updated. Can someone mention whats the difference between: http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf and http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.c

Re: [SARE] rules file updates

2005-10-02 Thread Loren Wilton
> > Robert Menschel wrote: > >> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have > >> been updated. > > > > Can someone mention whats the difference between: > > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf > > and > > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelis

spam file ownership

2005-10-02 Thread Obantec Support
Hi i have SA3.0 on FC3 with spam delivered to $HOME/mail/spam quota's enabled for /home where users live & /var where users mail lives. problem is the ownership is $uid.$gid of said user which means it eats into the quota of the user if they don't read and delete the spam. normal mail is delive

Re: [SARE] rules file updates

2005-10-02 Thread jdow
From: "Cami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Robert Menschel wrote: Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have been updated. Can someone mention whats the difference between: http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf and http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whi

Re: [SARE] rules file updates

2005-10-02 Thread Cami
Robert Menschel wrote: Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have been updated. Can someone mention whats the difference between: http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf and http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf Cami