Cami wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Cami wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Cami wrote:
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
trusted_networks 196.0.0.0/8 165.165.0.0/16 165.146.0.0/16
internal_networks 196.2.50.0/24
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Cami wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Cami wrote:
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
trusted_networks 196.0.0.0/8 165.165.0.0/16 165.146.0.0/16
internal_networks 196.2.50.0/24
I have done so,
- Original Message -
>I'm trying to work in a broader context - I find OOO
>replies annoying in any situation, not just those I get as
>a result of my (or others) posting to a list. Certainly
>sending OOO or vacation messages to a list is heinous, but
>even those I get from people with whom
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 18:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Kurt Buff wrote:
>> Differentiating between personal accounts and company email systems,
>> how do you all classify OOO messages?
>>
>> For my personal account (on gmail.com) I consider these things spam,
>> and report them to gmail as suc
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 18:53, Kurt Buff wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:47 PM
>> Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: *SPAM* Re: Stupid spammer
>> rule
>
>Let's take this one farther afield, sha
Cami wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Cami wrote:
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
trusted_networks 196.0.0.0/8 165.165.0.0/16 165.146.0.0/16
internal_networks 196.2.50.0/24
I have done so, yet i still fail to see
I'm trying to work in a broader context - I find OOO replies annoying in any
situation, not just those I get as a result of my (or others) posting to a
list. Certainly sending OOO or vacation messages to a list is heinous, but
even those I get from people with whom I correspond directly are quite
a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I think considering them spam is a little strong.
While it is not spam, it is undesirable and annoying. more annoying is
the fact that this problem is known since a long time but people keep
misconfiguring their systems (or reinventing broken vacation programs).
I was a binary program called MPP that is used to in conjunction with
scanners to filter email. I found out that the actual binary calls it
up and can't be changed without a recompile... that's as far as I got
so far anyways...
later
On 25-Oct-05, at 4:50 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Roland C
It should depend on the list rules. If the list rules
prohibit them then it should be treated as spam.
If the list rules has nothing in them about these annoying
little creatures then the list owner should just suspend the
account.
- Original Message -
From: Kurt Buff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kurt Buff wrote:
> Differentiating between personal accounts and company email systems,
> how do you all classify OOO messages?
>
> For my personal account (on gmail.com) I consider these things spam,
> and report them to gmail as such.
>
> I haven't started to do anything with them at work, but
> - Original Message -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:47 PM
> Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: *SPAM* Re: Stupid spammer rule
Let's take this one farther afield, shall we?
Differentiating between personal accounts and comp
Roland Corrigal wrote:
> OK, I found out what was starting it now. Thanks for all your help! I
> had to grep all of 'usr' to find it..
>
Was it Some kind of script in /usr/local/etc/? or was it something weirder than
that? ("Enquiring minds want to know!")
OK, I found out what was starting it now. Thanks for all your help! I
had to grep all of 'usr' to find it..
On 25-Oct-05, at 4:22 PM, Roland Corrigal wrote:
That's the funny thing...
There is no direct 'spamassassin' or 'spamd' script in the init
directory, and I did do a "grep -r spamd /
That's the funny thing...
There is no direct 'spamassassin' or 'spamd' script in the init
directory, and I did do a "grep -r spamd /etc/" and it didn't find it
anywhere relevant. I installed it from Perl. It's seems to be somehow
starting up with 'amavisd'. I've searched all of those files
Hello list,
I tried hard to receive more german text SPAM, and succeeded :-)
Therefore, I was able to start to write german text based rules, which I
put in an extra file. This file already contains the actual
netbanking.at phishing rules, and should be quite helpful.
I'd like to make it availa
On most sites it starts via /etc/init.d/spamassassin or /etc/init.d/spamd.
However, it could be started via anything.
It all depends on how it was set up. I can hand-hack a startup for it into
almost anything in the whole bootup if I wanted, and if it's been hand-hacked
you might just need to do a
Fred wrote:
> Hrmm something is wrong here, I updated this file on 10/14/2005 the very
> first day I seen this sign. What date are you showing on your copy of the
> random file?
>
> I also updated this file this morning to increase the score for this rule
> but I forgot to change the last modifie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Je serai absent(e) du 24/10/2005 au 28/10/2005.
So they
- autorespond to mailing lists,
- could set the date, but not the gender (see the '(e)')...
- and include 13 silly disclaimer lines for 2 lines of text
but now the best (I'll ignore some sentences that are
Sorry for another email, I meant.. "can't find how it starts up"
Thanks again,
RC
Where do I change the user that spamd starts up with... I searched
all my startup scripts and can find how it even starts up.
Thanks,
RC
Where do I change the user that spamd starts up with... I searched
all my startup scripts and can find how it even starts up.
Thanks,
RC
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: *SPAM* Re: Stupid spammer rule
Can we have this account removed from the
list...
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:47 PM
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: *SPAM* Re:
Hrmm something is wrong here, I updated this file on 10/14/2005 the very
first day I seen this sign. What date are you showing on your copy of the
random file?
I also updated this file this morning to increase the score for this rule
but I forgot to change the last modified date and also forgot t
Je serai absent(e) du 24/10/2005 au 28/10/2005.
Je répondrai à votre message dès mon retour.
Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont établis à l'intention exclusive de
ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous le recevez par erreur, merci
d'en avertir l'expéditeur et de le d
Matt Kettler wrote:
Cami wrote:
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
Yes you are. You're trying to use them as an RBL whitelist, and it doesn't work
that way. You can use them to deal with the DUL RBLs, but these settings
Currently 70_sare_random.cf is rather old and doesn't contain any rules for
these variants.
It's got %FROM_NAME, but not %NAME_FROM. It doesn't have anything close to
%NAME_TO.
Perhaps Fred Tarasevicius needs to make an update.
Adding NAME_FROM is easy:
header __RANDH_7B ALL =~ /%FROM_NAME/
ra
Cami wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>
>> First, neither trusted nor internal networks is a whitelist. Don't try
>> to treat
>> them as such.
>
>
> I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
> RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
Yes you are. You're trying to use t
Are you using 70_sare_random.cf ?
70_sare_random.cf
Description: 70_sare_random.cf tries to detect common mis-fires on
bulk mail software. Many signs are found like: %RND_NUMBER, etc
Mike
Kenneth Porter wrote:
Been getting a few of these:
From: "{%NAME_FROM}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "{%NA
Matt Kettler wrote:
First, neither trusted nor internal networks is a whitelist. Don't try to treat
them as such.
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
According to the docs:
Trusted rela
Been getting a few of these:
From: "{%NAME_FROM}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "{%NAME_TO}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Anyone have a rule to nuke them?
OK !!
Thanks everyone for the tips !!
Regards,
Carlos.
2005/10/25, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Carlos Zottmann wrote:
> > Hi!!
> >
> > We are using amavisd-new indeed, and that was the problem.
> >
> > Doing a "ps aux | grep spam", i get just the processes below, wich are
> > started by
Carlos Zottmann wrote:
> Hi!!
>
> We are using amavisd-new indeed, and that was the problem.
>
> Doing a "ps aux | grep spam", i get just the processes below, wich are
> started by a "spamassassin" service that we have on /etc/initd.
>
> spamd15804 0.0 1.6 30868 24992 ? Ss Oct21
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered secretively:
> I'm not sure what the SA folks think about this now a days. A while
> back, they removed the checks for MS executables as being spam
> indicators even though the test actually is a very good indicator of
> spam.
That's because it did
Hi!!
We are using amavisd-new indeed, and that was the problem.
Doing a "ps aux | grep spam", i get just the processes below, wich are
started by a "spamassassin" service that we have on /etc/initd.
spamd15804 0.0 1.6 30868 24992 ? Ss Oct21 0:00
/usr/bin/spamd -x -u spamd -H /hom
Cami wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm using SpamAssassin v3.1.0 and amavisd-new 2.3.3.
>
> Oct 23 15:59:53 spamwall03.mweb.co.za amavis[32425]: (32425-01-69) SPAM,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -> <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yes, Hits=7.734
> tag1=3.0 tag2=7.5 kill=7.5,
> tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12=1.668,FM_NO_STYLE=0
Robert Blayzor wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm running spamd with --max-spare, but as soon as I start it, it
>> spawns --max-children children and keeps it there.
>>
...
>> --round-robin \
...
>> --max-spare=5 \
...
> Because you have specified "--round-robin". That tells sp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm running spamd with --max-spare, but as soon as I start it, it spawns
> --max-children children and keeps it there.
>
> I'm running 3.10 with these options:
>
> /usr/bin/spamd \
> --daemonize \
> --username=spamd \
> --round-robin \
> --m
I'm running spamd with --max-spare, but as soon as I start it, it spawns
--max-children children and keeps it there.
I'm running 3.10 with these options:
/usr/bin/spamd \
--daemonize \
--username=spamd \
--round-robin \
--max-children=20 \
--max-spare=5 \
Hi,
I think you should check out P3Scan. It works fine for me.
Raimonds
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Cravero as2594 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:23 PM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: POP3 proxy with SA 3.x?
Hi,
I have successfully used a Perl POP3proxy
Hi,
I have successfully used a Perl POP3proxy on a Linux box with SA 2.6.x .
I have now migrated to 3.x, and some internal functions have been
dropped or renamed, so that Perl program doesn't work anymore.
Does anyone know of a (Linux) POP3 proxy that supports SA 3.x?
TIA,
Paolo
Hi All,
I'm using SpamAssassin v3.1.0 and amavisd-new 2.3.3.
Oct 23 15:59:53 spamwall03.mweb.co.za amavis[32425]: (32425-01-69) SPAM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -> <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yes, Hits=7.734 tag1=3.0
tag2=7.5 kill=7.5,
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12=1.668,FM_NO_STYLE=0.9,HTML_40_50=0.496,HTML_
41 matches
Mail list logo
