Re: white listed

Hello Thomas, Thursday, October 20, 2005, 11:01:13 AM, you wrote: TD> At one point I had a specific user in our white list, but TD> I've since taken them out, but messages are still coming in with TD> the header info, "not spam... white listed". TD> I have auto white list and auto learn turned of

Re: Opt Out

At 06:09 PM 10/20/2005, you wrote: Please remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the user list. Thank you As the headers to all messages say: list-unsubscribe:

Opt Out

Please remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the user list. Thank you

Upgrade to 3.1.0 and spamd

Everyone, I upgraded from 3.0.4 to 3.1.0 on two Red Hat 8.0 machines; everything seems to be working on the faster mail server, but I am having problems with the slower server. On the slower machine spamd seemed to quit working allowing the mail to go through the system without being filtered.

Re: SA 3.1 X-headers prepended instead of appended

wrote: I finally took the leap to SA 3.1 but am confused as to why the SA X-Headers are prepended to the message and not appeneded like the previous versions. This is causing havoc on my Blackberry. Is this normal? What kind of havoc? I haven't heard of any issues from the Blackberry

Re: False positive for HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC & HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR

Matt Kettler wrote: Received: from FOOBAR (adsl-xx-xx-xx-xx.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [xx.xx.xx.xx]) by > mail1..com with SMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:36:54 -0600 It doesn't like it when the HELLO is adsl-xx-xx-xx-xx.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.netWhy? Because a trusted host shouldn't be recei

RE: Argument "0.53_01" isn't numeric

Matt Kettler wrote: > Let's look at Dns.pm line 588: > > if ($Net::DNS::VERSION < 0.34) { > > Hmm, looks like someone (the Net::DNS maintainer) made Net::DNS have > a version number that's no longer a number, but a string. > > Net::DNS::VERSION "0.53_01" can't be numerically compared again

Re: Argument "0.53_01" isn't numeric

Masashi SAKURADA wrote: > Hello, > > I've been getting this warning since up to SA 3.1.0 on FreeBSD > 4.8-RELEASE-p22 > > Argument "0.53_01" isn't numeric in numeric lt (<) > at/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/Mail/SpamAssassin/Dns.pm line 588. > Let's look at Dns.pm line 588: if ($

RE: spamc -cy

Matthew.van.Eerde wrote: > spamc -c prints out the mail message's score and the required score > to be considered spam: > > spamc -c < sample-spam.txt > 1005.2/5.0 > > spamc -y prints out the list of tests that were matched: > > spamc -y < sample-spam.txt > BAYES_40,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,GT

Re: Confused about RCVD_IN_[SORBS|NJABL]_DUL

Jerome Mainka a écrit : Hello, I finally got the point of what is wrong with the mail I was dealing with. === Received headers Received: from mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr (mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr) by mwinb0504 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:49:36 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net

Re: white listed

Thomas Deaton a écrit : At one point I had a specific user in our white list, but I've since taken them out, but messages are still coming in with the header info, "not spam... white listed". I have auto white list and auto learn turned off. Anywhere else I should look to see why this is still

spamc -cy

spamc -c prints out the mail message's score and the required score to be considered spam: spamc -c < sample-spam.txt 1005.2/5.0 spamc -y prints out the list of tests that were matched: spamc -y < sample-spam.txt BAYES_40,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,GTUBE,NO_RECEIVED,NO_RELAYS,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_

backscatter bomb

I've got a backscatter bombing lately. nothing fantsatic, but are there good rules against that? and if not, is it feasible/worth to write ones? (I've got about 400/day, but the corpus isn't very interesting since I could "deviate" it with a single rule).

Re: Cry for help: What to do with spam like this:

Matthew Newton a écrit : 70_sare_specific.cf Sorry, that's too cryptic for me to understand. Are you trying to say that I should be using that ruleset (I am), that the OP should be (they are), or something else? As far as I can tell, he is saying the OP should use that rule or at leas

Re: custom rule help

On Thursday 20 October 2005 08:39 am, Jean-Paul Natola wrote: > I've been getting quite a few messages sneaking in related to stocks, > What I have noticed is that they ALL contain the following; > > Company: > Symbol: > Price: > How would I go about a creating a rule/filter that would score any me

Re: white listed

Thomas Deaton wrote: > At one point I had a specific user in our white list, but I've since taken > them out, but messages are still coming in with the header info, "not spam... > white listed". > I have auto white list and auto learn turned off. > Anywhere else I should look to see why this is s

Re: SA 3.1 X-headers prepended instead of appended

On Thu, October 20, 2005 10:35 am, Justin Mason said: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> On Thu, October 20, 2005 8:52 am, said: >> > I finally took the leap to SA 3.1 but am confused as to why the SA >> > X-Headers are prepended to the message and not >> > appeneded like the previous versions.

white listed

At one point I had a specific user in our white list, but I've since taken them out, but messages are still coming in with the header info, "not spam... white listed". I have auto white list and auto learn turned off. Anywhere else I should look to see why this is still happening? thanks Tom

Re: spec file for cpan2rpm and suse 9.3

On 10/20/2005 1:27 PM, Eric A. Hall wrote: > Anybody got one that works with gnome/evolution? > > evolution requires "spamassassin", which requires "perl-spamassassin". > cpan2rpm makes "perl-Mail-SpamAssassin", which doesn't satisfy either of > the packaging dependencies. Attempts on my part to

Re: Spam with graphic and hotspots, no text.........

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok...I've been properly chastised. Forgive the resurgence of newbie-ism on my part. :) I've started getting complaints about e-mails that are are just a graphic and a couple of hot spots, no text. Does anyone know how to mark those as spam without whacking all of the

Entire message is only an attachment, no associated text.

BDY.RTF Description: RTF file

spec file for cpan2rpm and suse 9.3

Anybody got one that works with gnome/evolution? evolution requires "spamassassin", which requires "perl-spamassassin". cpan2rpm makes "perl-Mail-SpamAssassin", which doesn't satisfy either of the packaging dependencies. Attempts on my part to tweak the spec file generated with cpan2rpm have fail

Spam with graphic and hotspots, no text.........

BDY.RTF Description: RTF file

Re: SA 3.1 X-headers prepended instead of appended

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Thu, October 20, 2005 8:52 am, said: > > All, > > > > I finally took the leap to SA 3.1 but am confused as to why the SA > > X-Headers are prepended to the message and not > > appeneded like the previous versions.

RE: custom rule help

> -Original Message- > From: Jean-Paul Natola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:40 AM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: custom rule help > > > Hi all , > > I've been getting quite a few messages sneaking in related to stocks, > What I have no

Re: custom rule help

Jean-Paul Natola wrote: > Hi all , > > I've been getting quite a few messages sneaking in related to stocks, > What I have noticed is that they ALL contain the following; > > Company: > Symbol: > Price: > How would I go about a creating a rule/filter that would score any message > that contain

Re: Argument "0.53_01" isn't numeric

Hello, From: Michael Monnerie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Argument "0.53_01" isn't numeric Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:39:41 +0200 > On Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2005 01:26 Masashi SAKURADA wrote: > > This may check version of Dns.pm. The file Dns.pm has no version > > number itself. Could you t

Re: SA 3.1 X-headers prepended instead of appended

On Thu, October 20, 2005 8:52 am, said: > All, > > I finally took the leap to SA 3.1 but am confused as to why the SA > X-Headers are prepended to the message and not > appeneded like the previous versions. This is causing havoc on my > Blackberry. Is this normal? I believe this is causing

RE: SA 3.1 X-headers prepended instead of appended

wrote: > I finally took the leap to SA 3.1 but am confused as to why the SA > X-Headers are prepended to the message and not appeneded like the > previous versions. This is causing havoc on my Blackberry. Is this > normal? It's a feature. Things like DomainKeys sign all the content below

SA 3.1 X-headers prepended instead of appended

All, I finally took the leap to SA 3.1 but am confused as to why the SA X-Headers are prepended to the message and not appeneded like the previous versions. This is causing havoc on my Blackberry. Is this normal? TIA,

Re: Argument "0.53_01" isn't numeric

On Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2005 01:26 Masashi SAKURADA wrote: > This may check version of Dns.pm. The file Dns.pm has no version > number itself. Could you tell me how to resolve this problem? cpan -i Net::DNS will install the newest version (0.53). mfg zmi -- // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ---

custom rule help

Hi all , I've been getting quite a few messages sneaking in related to stocks, What I have noticed is that they ALL contain the following; Company: Symbol: Price: How would I go about a creating a rule/filter that would score any message that contains those three words followed by the colon to

Re: sa-learn ham and auto_whitelist

At 10:07 AM 10/20/2005, FH wrote: > Really, you shouldn't be looking at the scores. You should be looking at > what rules the messages are hitting. Only this can tell you the "why" of > the matter. Everything else is just looking at the results. > Makes sense, I'll dig into that a little deeper t

Re: Confused about RCVD_IN_[SORBS|NJABL]_DUL

Hello, I finally got the point of what is wrong with the mail I was dealing with. === Received headers Received: from mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr (mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr) by mwinb0504 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:49:36 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])

Re: sa-learn ham and auto_whitelist

Thanks for the reply/info -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:10:06 PM EDT From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: sa-learn ham and auto_whitelist > > > > - I know I could add a "whitelist_from" to lo

Re: Cry for help: What to do with spam like this:

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:59:22AM -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Matthew Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:57:44PM +0200, Jon Kvebaek wrote: > >>Hi, > >>we are currently receiving a lot of mail like the one listed beneath. No > >>rules seem to hit it at all, and it gets a l

Re: Cry for help: What to do with spam like this:

From: "Matthew Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:57:44PM +0200, Jon Kvebaek wrote: Hi, we are currently receiving a lot of mail like the one listed beneath. No rules seem to hit it at all, and it gets a low negative score. Does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this

Re: Confused about RCVD_IN_[SORBS|NJABL]_DUL

Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 13:18, mouss a écrit : > your pop proxy may add received headers (aka fetchmail) No. > mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr (smtp1.wanadoo.fr 193.252.22.30) is listed in SORBS > (as a spam source). so unless you set the score of _SORBS rules, you're > gonna hit. but then you'll miss spam.

Re: Confused about RCVD_IN_[SORBS|NJABL]_DUL

Jerome Mainka a écrit : Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 03:29, Matt Kettler a écrit : At 04:22 PM 10/19/2005, Jerome Mainka wrote: same behavior. Actually, if I empty the internal/trusted networks set, I get the same behavior. Warning: you can never empty the trusted networks set. If

Re: Cry for help: What to do with spam like this:

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:57:44PM +0200, Jon Kvebaek wrote: > Hi, > we are currently receiving a lot of mail like the one listed beneath. No > rules seem to hit it at all, and it gets a low negative score. Does > anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this (except that I could > make some rules

Re: Confused about RCVD_IN_[SORBS|NJABL]_DUL

Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 03:29, Matt Kettler a écrit : > At 04:22 PM 10/19/2005, Jerome Mainka wrote: > >same behavior. Actually, if I empty the internal/trusted networks set, I > > get the same behavior. > > Warning: you can never empty the trusted networks set. If you don't have > one declared, S

Re: Confused about RCVD_IN_[SORBS|NJABL]_DUL

Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 02:46, Daryl C. W. O'Shea a écrit : > Jerome Mainka wrote: > > The sender and the recipient belong together to the same provider, and > > the final server of the received path is not the host on which SA is run. > > Which server is scanning the mail? The server is a proxy p