Hello:
Just upgraded to 4.60 here with Spamassassin 3.0.4 and all seems to
work OK with the exception that I'm not seeing time out errors in the
spam scanningI didn't see that (at least in logs) with exim 3.36
and SA 3.0.4. I haven't changed configurations on SA at all and Exim
is also the sam
Am Samstag, 7. Januar 2006 02:09 schrieb Craig McLean:
> Dear list,
> The attached message was nailed to the tune of 3.7 points by
> FUZZY_MORTGAGE. Unfortunately it's a legit opt-in mailing
thats what whitelisting is for.
bye,
MH
At 08:09 PM 1/6/2006, Craig McLean wrote:
The attached message was nailed to the tune of 3.7 points by
FUZZY_MORTGAGE. Unfortunately it's a legit opt-in mailing, and appears
to have triggered the rule because a URL containing the word "mortgage"
got split across lines 269/270 (correct me if I'm w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear list,
The attached message was nailed to the tune of 3.7 points by
FUZZY_MORTGAGE. Unfortunately it's a legit opt-in mailing, and appears
to have triggered the rule because a URL containing the word "mortgage"
got split across lines 269/270 (corre
Matt Kettler skrev:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>
>>Please don't use Reply if you're not replying. It makes a mess of the
>>threading.
>
>
> Magnus.. While that is a good suggestion, I don't see how it applies here.
>
> There's no References: or In-Reply-To: in Fran's original message, and my copy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi matt,
>> they are where they're supposed to be, i.e. i pointed my SA build to:
>>
>> perl Makefile.PL \
>> PREFIX=/usr/local/spamassassin-dev \
>> DATADIR=/var/MailServer/Conf/SA/Dist \
>> CONFDIR=/var/MailServer/Conf/SA/L
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Please don't use Reply if you're not replying. It makes a mess of the
> threading.
Magnus.. While that is a good suggestion, I don't see how it applies here.
There's no References: or In-Reply-To: in Fran's original message, and my copy
of Thunderbird shows it as a top-le
OpenMacNews wrote:
> hi matt,
>
> thx for the reply :-)
>
>
is this an RDJ or SA issue?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, RDJ is probably running spamassassin --lint. No --siteconfigpath, no
>>>--configpath, because those are rare things to do. Most of us run with our
>>>config files in directories that SA
Please don't use Reply if you're not replying. It makes a mess of the
threading.
Fran Fabrizio wrote:
> What's the default score for UPPERCASE_75_100? This test does not
> appear to be documented at http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html.
At least in my installation (Debian package) it'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi matt,
thx for the reply :-)
>> is this an RDJ or SA issue?
>
>
> Well, RDJ is probably running spamassassin --lint. No --siteconfigpath, no
> --configpath, because those are rare things to do. Most of us run with our
> config files in dire
http://www.rulesemporium.com/
Carefully select some rule sets that look like they'd be safe for your
installation. Install them with the RulesDuJour script or one of your
own devising. Watch the spam go poof into the night.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
OpenMacNews wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i've SA 310dev (r366568) newly updated on OSX 10.4.3.
>
>
> now, however, RDJ's diagnostic --lint fails with:
>
>
> [368] warn: config: cannot open /usr/share/spamassassin/user_prefs.template:
> No such file or
> directory
> [368] warn: config: failed to crea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi all,
i've SA 310dev (r366568) newly updated on OSX 10.4.3.
as usual, i'm using RDJ to DL rules to my --configpath dir. until now, both SA
& RDJ's
diagnostic --lints have been OK.
now, however, RDJ's diagnostic --lint fails with:
***NOTICE
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:31 PM
To: mouss
Cc: Jeff Peng; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: URIBLFP? [Was: SA or Commercial AntiSpam products]
mouss wrote:
(top posting becau
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Jeff Duncan wrote:
> > ...my Thunderbird mail client to catch more junk mail as spam than
> > my SA server? The SA threshold is set at 5.0, and the Thunderbird
> > junk mail filters identify junk mail even with an SA hit of 0.
> > What can I do to fine tune so that the SA se
Fran Fabrizio wrote:
>
> What's the default score for UPPERCASE_75_100? This test does not
> appear to be documented at http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html.
I would STRONGLY suggest not relying on the information on that page for
anything other than a gross overview of SA.
If you wa
No. I have a default install except for the
threshold setting. I will research the sa-learn. Thank you.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Jeff Duncan wrote:
...my Thunderbird mail client to catch more junk mail as spam than my SA
server? The SA threshold is set at 5.0, and the Thunderbird ju
grep "score UPPERCASE_75_100" /usr/share/spamassassin/50_scores.cf
score UPPERCASE_75_100 1.394 1.040 0.809 1.371
-Original Message-
From: Fran Fabrizio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:52 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Default score for UPPERCASE_
Jeff Duncan wrote:
> ...my Thunderbird mail client to catch more junk mail as spam than my SA
> server? The SA threshold is set at 5.0, and the Thunderbird junk mail
> filters identify junk mail even with an SA hit of 0. What can I do to
> fine tune so that the SA server catches these, anything?
Some spam messages still not hitting any rules. Running a spamassassin
--lint -D, I can see the default rules rules being loaded, as well as a few
custom rules. I am thinking about just reloading and starting over. This
machine has been in service for at least a year and has been through
se
>...
>Seems he's been tagged for $11.2 BILLION for sending 280 million
>spams to a small Iowa based ISP.
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28733
>http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/01/04/news/local/doc43bb692ac9e86281138542.txt#top
>
>And he's apparently unknown to Rokso!
>{O.O}
>
>
He
...my Thunderbird mail client to catch more junk
mail as spam than my SA server? The SA threshold is set at 5.0, and
the Thunderbird junk mail filters identify junk mail even with an SA
hit of 0. What can I do to fine tune so that the SA server catches
these, anything? How is it that thunder
What's the default score for UPPERCASE_75_100? This test does not
appear to be documented at http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html.
I am examining a mail to figure out why it got a false positive. User
has no user_prefs or even .spamassassin directory. If the default is 0,
where
Some spam messages still not hitting any rules. Running a
spamassassin --lint -D, I can see the default rules rules being loaded, as
well as a few custom rules. I am thinking about just reloading and starting
over. This machine has been in service for at least a year and has been
through se
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:31 PM
> To: mouss
> Cc: Jeff Peng; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: URIBLFP? [Was: SA or Commercial AntiSpam products]
>
> mouss wrote:
> > (top posting because not a re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Neylon:"@netoyen.net:Blacknight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ahuh? Can you please send you me (offline) your From address (in the
body of a message so it's not rewritten). seems like it triggers a bogus
postfix rewrite.
> If you don't appro
mouss wrote:
> (top posting because not a reply:)
>
> this message triggers:
> URIBL_BLACK (nease DOT net. found in the message footer)
> MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY
> RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY (because of X-Originating-IP: [218.19.159.186])
>
> and also
> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
> DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
> MSGID_FROM_M
(top posting because not a reply:)
this message triggers:
URIBL_BLACK (nease DOT net. found in the message footer)
MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY
RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY (because of X-Originating-IP: [218.19.159.186])
and also
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER
is the uribl listing jus
Thanks Gary,
My sa_tag_level_deflt is set to 3. I double checked to make sure the mail
size limit was set to 1 meg. On the messages I am having issues with, this
is an expample:
<...>
No sa timeouts in the logs.
Jan 6 12:08:20 mail4 amavis[3142]: (03142-01) Passed,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks Matt,
No just average message sizes. We have the server set to scan up to 1M
messages.
Shane
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: messages not being scanned
[EMAIL
Thanks Gary,
My sa_tag_level_deflt is set to 3. I double checked to make sure the
mail size limit was set to 1 meg. On the messages I am having issues with,
this is an expample: (Note, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a valid
sender, the ip 216.145.68.238 belongs to ehc-68-238.ehc.edu, not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One of our three SA boxes is not scanning some messages. And of course
> the messages not being scanned are spam mails. We are running OpenBSD
> 3.7, SA 3.1.0, Amavisd 2.3.3 and Postfix 2.2.6. If anyone has some
> suggestions on what to check, they would be greatly app
>...
>I'm getting quite a bit of spam with
>Return-Path: <>
>in the headers.
>
>Will I likely see valid e-mail with this? Searching my previous mail,
>it appears to all be bounce warnings.
>
>If so, what's the best way to just blackhole this? I have postfix, and put
>/Return-Path: <>/ Reject
One of our three SA boxes is not scanning some messages. And of course the
messages not being scanned are spam mails. We are running OpenBSD 3.7, SA
3.1.0, Amavisd 2.3.3 and Postfix 2.2.6. If anyone has some suggestions on
what to check, they would be greatly appreciated,
Thanks
Shane
Are
>...
>Is their a way to get the URI's to look at stuff like this?? I'm seeing =
>more and more spam with these kinds of things in them to get by URI =
>detection..
>
>http://asia.geocities.com/april19781matt1487
>
>Thanks, Billy
>...
Not that it answers your question, but this is Robert S
One of our three SA boxes is not scanning some
messages. And of course the messages not being scanned are spam
mails. We are running OpenBSD 3.7, SA 3.1.0, Amavisd 2.3.3 and
Postfix 2.2.6. If anyone has some suggestions on what to check, they would
be greatly appreciated,
Thanks
Shane
On Friday, January 6, 2006 at 2:01:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
> My ONLY gripe is the setup routine for SA. I don't know if the
> commercial products have the SA code embedded so that the setup is
> masked. But for less technical types (me), SA's setup is a bit
> complicated. Has an
Clay Davis wrote:
My ONLY gripe is the setup routine for SA. I don't know if the
commercial products have the SA code embedded so that the setup is
masked. But for less technical types (me), SA's setup is a bit
complicated. Has anyone rolled the SA setup into something similar to
Windows Insta
My ONLY gripe is the setup routine for SA. I don't know if the
commercial products have the SA code embedded so that the setup is
masked. But for less technical types (me), SA's setup is a bit
complicated. Has anyone rolled the SA setup into something similar to
Windows Installer?
Thanks for th
Jeff Peng wrote:
> Hi,Lists,
>
> I'm new to SpamAssassin.How about SA's TOP capability on antispam? Can I
> use it instead of some commercian antispam products?Thanks.
>
>
Considering a lot of commercial products use SA to do their work, i dont
see any reason why you could not use it instead o
Hi,Lists,
I'm new to SpamAssassin.How about SA's TOP capability on antispam? Can I
use it instead of some commercian antispam products?Thanks.
--
Jeff Peng[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.163.com http://mail.126.com http://wazzy.nease.net
va
Paco Yepes a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> Im using postfix 2.1.5 + spamassassin 3.1.0a-2 + amavisd-new
> 20030616p10-5
>
> In the last weeks the size of false-negatives (fn) is grow
> significatelly. All this fn do not have scores of type BAYES_XX (and I
> think that is not normal).
>
> When I check the
42 matches
Mail list logo
