On Wednesday 14 December 2005 13:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>Clay Davis wrote:
>> When I lint my rules the output tells me that it chose rule set 0.
>>
>> c:\>spamassassin -D --lint
>> debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
>> debug: Score set 0 chosen.
>> debug: running in taint mode? no
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
Dec 14 13:27:46 www spamd[3654]: mkdir /dev/null: File exists at ///
Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 1467
Dec 14 13:27:46 www spamd[3654]: locker: safe_lock: cannot create
lockfile /dev/null/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.mutex: Not a
directory
scantime=0.6,size=,user=exim,uid=-2,
On Dec 14, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:39:16PM -0500, Brian Kendig wrote:
Dec 14 13:27:46 www spamd[3654]: mkdir /dev/null: File exists at ///
Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 1467
Dec 14 13:27:46 www spamd[3654]: locker: safe_lock: cannot cre
Gene, how many times has a machine you've setup been rootkitted lately?
Are you asking us to help you setup another one?
{^_-}
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2005 December, 14, Wednesday 18:24
Subject: Re: perm probs with SA (repost as gmail acc
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 02:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
>At 01:34 AM 12/14/2005, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>Now, pursuant to someone elses advice, I've got those directories,
>>both /root/.spamassassin and /etc/mail/spamassasin have been
>> subjected to a chown -R spamd:spamd, but the perms problems
>>
I think it was a mistake on our part by using the same name for i/p and o/p.
regards
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: spamassassin 3.1.0 test gives error
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:29:45 -0500
>
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> >
At 07:44 PM 12/14/2005, Rolf wrote:
hello
Am wishing to use pyzor but my site must go through a configured http
proxy. Does pyzor support a proxy, if so how do you set it?
AFAIK, pyzor doesn't support a proxy, at least not directly.
However, if it does it would likely be due to python base l
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 02:13, Matt Kettler wrote:
>At 01:57 AM 12/14/2005, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>And I've got grep searching roughly 320 GB of drives looking for a
>> file that actually contains the string '/root/.spamassassin'. As
>> amanda is running too, things are getting laggy, but I m
Nico Prenzel wrote:
> But what means the "disconnect (overloaded)"? There really doesn't happen
> a disconnect? Or?
It just means that it caught a disconnect call and ignored it, the
disconnect method is overloaded. Perhaps I should specify that in
slightly different language.
Although, it's on
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:29 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>For DNS, well, DNS lookups are by nature slow, and SA makes a lot of them. You
>>can improve the speed a little by running a caching nameserver on the local
>>host, but that's not a "fix-all".
>
>
> Ah, that i
Pollywog wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:25:55 +:
> I meant that since I am getting some mails with DK_VERIFIED, it might mean
> that something is broken with Yahoo's DK, if you are not getting DK_VERIFIED
> in Yahoo mails.
Or it's broken on my end ;-) After all, I have none of these hits at a
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 17:41 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>You can improve speed by:
>>1) disabling things, such as bayes URIBLS and RBLs
>>2) If you are using bayes switching from DB_File BayesStore to SQL
>>(recommended)
>>or SDBM (fast bu
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 17:41 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> You can improve speed by:
> 1) disabling things, such as bayes URIBLS and RBLs
> 2) If you are using bayes switching from DB_File BayesStore to SQL
> (recommended)
> or SDBM (fast but not well tested) will yield c
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Having an issue messages delayed running SA 3.1 with postfix 2.2.7 and
> amavis 2.3.3 on FreeBSD 5.4 dual proc xeon 2.4's with 1GB RAM. Messages
> come in as queue active and don't get picked up by amavis for an hour
> sometimes. I am trying to be sure that is is not a s
Having an issue messages delayed running SA 3.1 with postfix 2.2.7 and
amavis 2.3.3 on FreeBSD 5.4 dual proc xeon 2.4's with 1GB RAM. Messages
come in as queue active and don't get picked up by amavis for an hour
sometimes. I am trying to be sure that is is not a slow process in
amavis that is caus
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Given that I'm looking for maximum message scanning speed and lowest RAM
> overhead on a single server, is there any reason for me to prefer using SQL
> over
> SDBM?
Replying to myself I found one issue. sa-learn --restore doesn't work properly
for SD BM:
http://issues.apac
Kristopher Austin wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:05:44 -0600:
>
Next time, please "snip" a bit more and remove the rest of unnecessary
stuff as well ;-)
> I can't find any mention of safe-sorbs on sorbs.net. Does
> this list still exist?
It's a new list made up per my request some months ago.
Justin Mason wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:19:41 -0800:
> All the other DK hits just mean that DK headers were *found*, not that
> they validated as correct in any way.
Yeah, that's why I would like to see some DK_verified ;-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Inter
Tim Densmore wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:06:52 -0700:
> I take it that outbound filtering isn't something many people do. Does
> anyone have any pointers at all for this sort of thing?
Take a look at MailScanner. It scans in and out and up and beyond.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get
On 12/14/2005 11:31 am, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Pollywog wrote on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:35:25 +:
> > Is it just a problem for Yahoo domains?
>
> I didn't know of any other domains doing this. Now that I know gmail does
> it as well I can look out for gmail mails ...
>
> Maybe the problem is Yahoo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone give me some hints on how to improve the spam deteection rate
> ?
>
> we use spamassassin 3.1.0 with dcc, razor, bayes and the following rules
> via rulesdujour:
>
> bash-2.05# cat /etc/rulesdujour/config
> [ "${TRUSTED_RULESETS}" ] || \
>
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:28:07PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>>spamassassin -t < sample-nonspam.txt > sample-nonspam.txt
>>
>>Why'd you direct the output back to sample-nonspam.txt? If SA isn't working
>>you'll corrupt the file.
>
>
> Beyond that, I don't even know i
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:28:07PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > spamassassin -t < sample-nonspam.txt > sample-nonspam.txt
>
> Why'd you direct the output back to sample-nonspam.txt? If SA isn't working
> you'll corrupt the file.
Beyond that, I don't even know if it'll work. In all likelihood,
Clay Davis wrote:
> Matt (or group),
>
> I have read this and I believe I understand the scoring (as well as I
> understand anything in SA!), but I don't believe that this particular "From"
> address has ever sent any HAM, so I am wondering why he didn't get a positive
> AWL score.
>Is it bec
Looking in the wiki I found this very interesting page:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesBenchmarkResults
Now, obviously the SQL implementations are the implementation of choice if you
want to share a bayes DB across multiple servers. No question about it, that's
what SQL servers are for
Matt (or group),
I have read this and I believe I understand the scoring (as well as I
understand anything in SA!), but I don't believe that this particular "From"
address has ever sent any HAM, so I am wondering why he didn't get a positive
AWL score. Is it because this particular message was
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:39:16PM -0500, Brian Kendig wrote:
> Dec 14 13:27:46 www spamd[3654]: mkdir /dev/null: File exists at ///
> Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 1467
> Dec 14 13:27:46 www spamd[3654]: locker: safe_lock: cannot create
> lockfile /dev/null/.spamassassin/auto-whi
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:59:09PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> I was under the impression that a full vacuum was more extensive and
> compacted the tables more than a regular vacuum.
>
> I'll check out autovacuum, thanks.
Well, yes, it does. And as you discovered it also takes an exclusive
lock on the ta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Gottlieb writes:
>OK, I do see messages like:
>
>bayes: cannot open bayes databases
>/net/mail/etc/mail/spamassassin/site-wide/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: File exists
>
>I moved to a site-wide database because most users aren't going to
>bother wit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Kai Schaetzl" writes:
>Pollywog wrote on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:35:25 +:
> Maybe the problem is Yahoo because I
>> have gotten a few DK_VERIFIED emails though most that specify DK
>> anything just specify one of the other tags, not the "VERIFIED"
Dan wrote:
> I was under the impression that a full vacuum was more extensive and
> compacted the tables more than a regular vacuum.
That much is true, full vacuum is more extensive. It's also slower, and requires
locking. The difference being that the full variant actually compacts the data,
wher
I was under the impression that a full vacuum was more extensive and
compacted the tables more than a regular vacuum.
I'll check out autovacuum, thanks.
-Dan
On 12/13/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are you running vacuum full? There shouldn't be any need to if
> you're vacuumi
I'm running Exim 4.60 on Mac OS X, and calling SpamAssassin
automatically through SA-Exim (which makes Exim pass mail thru
spamd). SpamAssassin 3.0.4 was running fine, but when I upgraded to
SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (by downloading and compiling the source, after
using CPAN to update all the opt
Clay Davis wrote:
> When rule "AWL" fires, how do I know which entry set it off? I would like to
> consider removing this entry from my White-list, but don't know which one.
The AWL doesn't fire off based on any white-list entries in your config files.
The AWL isn't really even a whitelist, but
Clay Davis wrote:
> When I lint my rules the output tells me that it chose rule set 0.
>
> c:\>spamassassin -D --lint
> debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
> debug: Score set 0 chosen.
> debug: running in taint mode? no
> .
> .
> .
>
> Does this mean that I am not running Bayes or Network tests?
BG Mahesh wrote:
> I have installed SA 3.1.0 on Linux.
>
> spamassassin -t < sample-nonspam.txt > sample-nonspam.txt
Why'd you direct the output back to sample-nonspam.txt? If SA isn't working
you'll corrupt the file.
In any event, is sample-nonspam.txt the exact sample-nonspam.txt that comes wi
OK, I do see messages like:
bayes: cannot open bayes databases
/net/mail/etc/mail/spamassassin/site-wide/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: File exists
I moved to a site-wide database because most users aren't going to
bother with training, so I figured this way all users can benefit from
the training th
On 2005-12-14 at 10:21, Jim Gottlieb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't see any logs kept by spamassassin.
OK, I found them in syslog.
So far I don't see any bayes-related errors.
On 2005-12-14 at 09:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > access to it, so I could see that bayes access might often time out
> > while waiting for some other's lock to expire?
>
> Depends on traffic... there should be some bayes errors in your logs if there
> are timeout issues.
Robert Swan wrote:
> I am wondering how many is the maximum SPAMD proccesses that occur in
> 3.1 and how you can change this number. I am running redhat 9 with
> postfix and SPAMC/SPAMD.
You can set many different options which will control how many spamd's there
are, including the maximum.
See
Jim Gottlieb wrote:
> I notice that in many of the spam messages that sneak through, the
> X-Spam-Status header does not have any BAYES_* score. Does this
> indicate a problem? Should all messages includes a BAYES score?
Not all, but certainly most.
> I am using a single bayes database for our
Yes, exactly. Our aim is to set a fairly high bar as to what is spam, and
drop anything that's obviously spam on the floor. We're implementing a few
of the recent tricks included in sendmail as well, but we'd like the ability
to filter before it leaves our network. I'll take a look - thanks!
Th
I notice that in many of the spam messages that sneak through, the
X-Spam-Status header does not have any BAYES_* score. Does this
indicate a problem? Should all messages includes a BAYES score?
I am using a single bayes database for our whole network, mounted via
NFS. But it seems to lock it f
Tim Densmore wrote:
> I take it that outbound filtering isn't something many people do.
> Does anyone have any pointers at all for this sort of thing? Should
> I report back to the person who tasked me with this that this idea is
> essentially a non-starter?
Try MIMEDefang instead of spamass-mil
I am wondering how many is the maximum SPAMD proccesses that
occur in 3.1 and how you can change this number. I am running redhat 9 with postfix
and SPAMC/SPAMD.
Thanks
Robert
Peace he would say instead of goodbyepeace my brother.
When rule "AWL" fires, how do I know which entry set it off? I would like to
consider removing this entry from my White-list, but don't know which one.
pts rule name description
-- --
4.5 BAYES_99
Hi Folks,
I take it that outbound filtering isn't something many people do. Does
anyone have any pointers at all for this sort of thing? Should I report
back to the person who tasked me with this that this idea is essentially a
non-starter?
Thank you,
Tim "TD" Densmore
Cyber Mesa Telecom
Sant
> -Original Message-
> From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:54 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Scoring for MAPS
>
> I would be interesting to know the nature of these 14 nonspam hits. As I
> said, if
> they were not spa
Mark Damrose wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:28:23 -0600:
> FYI: NJABL's proxy list has been added to CBL and BOPM as a
> data feed for XBL. Querying it separately is redundant, unless
> you are using dynablock.
That explains why there's even less hits than there used to be. AFAIR I
use the NJAB
Hello Michael,
i've installed your DBI-Plugin. I think
it's a nice idea.
But the log output isn't clear to me:
Wed Dec 14 14:29:17 2005 [8032] dbg:
dbiplugin: dbi:mysql:SpamAssassin:localhost need ping? yes
Wed Dec 14 14:29:17 2005 [8032] dbg:
dbiplugin: Returning already connected database han
Matthew Yette wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:33:25 -0500:
> Since most spam is relatively small in size, I was thinking of implementing
> a limit on SA that says, only scan for spam if this message is less than,
> say, 200k. Is this an easily settable option?
I think I use only 50k with Mailscann
> -Original Message-
> From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:54 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Scoring for MAPS
>
> List Mail User wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:29:05 -0800 (PST):
>
> > I "trust" all the RFCI lists,
>
>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Can we add extra rulesets ? I checked the wiki page on rulesdujour
> and these are the only "official" rules apparently. Can I use other
> rules with rules du jour ?
Take a look at the SARE rules on rulesemporium.com. It looks like you
have m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/14/2005 04:01:43 AM:
> BTW, we have other (older I guess) rules as well in our rules directory,
> this is the current list:
>
> 10_misc.cf
25_textcat.cf 70_sare_uri1.cf
> 20_advance_fee.cf 25_uribl.cf
70_sare_whitelist.cf
> 20_anti_
>
> On 12/14/05 9:37 AM, "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Matthew Yette wrote:
>>> Since most spam is relatively small in size, I was thinking of
>>> implementing
>>> a limit on SA that says, only scan for spam if this message is less
>>> than,
>>> say, 200k. Is this an easily sett
Matthew Yette wrote:
On 12/14/05 9:37 AM, "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matthew Yette wrote:
Since most spam is relatively small in size, I was thinking of implementing
a limit on SA that says, only scan for spam if this message is less than,
say, 200k. Is this an easily settabl
On 12/14/05 9:37 AM, "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Yette wrote:
>> Since most spam is relatively small in size, I was thinking of implementing
>> a limit on SA that says, only scan for spam if this message is less than,
>> say, 200k. Is this an easily settable option?
>>
> Matthew Yette wrote:
>> Since most spam is relatively small in size, I was thinking of
>> implementing
>> a limit on SA that says, only scan for spam if this message is less
>> than,
>> say, 200k. Is this an easily settable option?
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> If you are using spamc the default is already 250k
Kai,
Thanks, you were right. Score set 3 later...
Re,
Clay
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/2005 9:31:19 am >>>
Clay Davis wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:46:46 -0500:
> Does this mean that I am not running Bayes or Network tests? The
spam
> I am catching shows that the Bayes
> rules are firing...
Matthew Yette wrote:
Since most spam is relatively small in size, I was thinking of implementing
a limit on SA that says, only scan for spam if this message is less than,
say, 200k. Is this an easily settable option?
Hi,
If you are using spamc the default is already 250k bytes
-s max_size
I
Since most spam is relatively small in size, I was thinking of implementing
a limit on SA that says, only scan for spam if this message is less than,
say, 200k. Is this an easily settable option?
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Yette
Senior Engineer (NOC/Operations)
M.A. Polce Consulting
315-838-1644
Clay Davis wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:46:46 -0500:
> Does this mean that I am not running Bayes or Network tests? The spam
> I am catching shows that the Bayes
> rules are firing...
Another score set may be chosen later. Check the whole debug output.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get
Matt Kettler wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:42:49 -0500:
> Personally, I have yet to find a single RBL that's sufficiently accurate and
> FP
> free for me to begin to consider it for use as an MTA layer rejection
> criteria.
>
> But I consider using a RBL for MTA block an act of extreme trust.
When I lint my rules the output tells me that it chose rule set 0.
c:\>spamassassin -D --lint
debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
debug: Score set 0 chosen.
debug: running in taint mode? no
.
.
.
Does this mean that I am not running Bayes or Network tests? The spam I am
catching shows that the Ba
List Mail User wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:29:05 -0800 (PST):
> I "trust" all the RFCI lists,
I don't ;-) I fear that may have too many FPs. But I haven't tried them. I also
look at the cost:benefit ratio and I don't feel that they would add much extra
benefit for the extra cost of querying th
Matt Kettler wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:17:04 -0500:
> Using greylisting you'd delay their mail, but they'd be able to deliver even
> if
> they still are in the RBL if they retry after the greylist timer expires.
That makes only sense if you greylist *only* hosts on these lists. This looks
r
Michael Parker wrote:
> One interesting feature of the talk was the release of a plugin that
> handles persistent database connection in SpamAssassin. This is
> especially useful for folks using SQL for user preferences, AWL or
> Bayes. I invite everyone to try it out and provide lots of feedback
Pollywog wrote on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:35:25 +:
> Is it just a problem for Yahoo domains?
I didn't know of any other domains doing this. Now that I know gmail does it as
well I can look out for gmail mails ...
Maybe the problem is Yahoo because I
> have gotten a few DK_VERIFIED emails tho
On Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2005 11:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can I use other rules with rules du jour ?
Yes, par example ZMI_GERMAN is available via RDJ. It for german SPAM
only. There may be other rules as well, look in the source of RDJ.
> BTW, we have other (older I guess) rules as well i
Hi,
Can someone give me some hints on how to improve the spam deteection rate
?
we use spamassassin 3.1.0 with dcc, razor, bayes and the following rules
via rulesdujour:
bash-2.05# cat /etc/rulesdujour/config
[ "${TRUSTED_RULESETS}" ] || \
TRUSTED_RULESETS="TRIPWIRE ANTIDRUG RANDOMVAL
I have installed SA 3.1.0 on Linux.
spamassassin -t < sample-nonspam.txt > sample-nonspam.txt
---
[28533] warn: Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm line 119.
[28533] warn: Use of uninitialized value in patt
Howdy,
Today, well I guess yesterday now, I gave a talk at ApacheCon US 2005
entitled "Extending Apache SpamAssassin Using Plugins." I've gone ahead
and put my slides and my notes along with a few example plugins here:
http://people.apache.org/~parker/presentations/
I tried to be as verbose as p
72 matches
Mail list logo
