A few weeks ago i deleted my bayes_seen and bayes_toks files because
bayes was behaving poorly.
I have been working hard to retrain bayes, and have realized a problem:
using sa-learn --dump magic, nham is stuck at 182.
I can learn a use sa-learn --ham, and it'll tell me
Learned from 19 message(s)
On Friday 03 February 2006 00:30, jdow wrote:
>From: "John Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
>sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
>gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
>reg
From: "John Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
regrettable.
I have the "other sa-stats.pl" working well on my syst
On 02/02/2006 10:50 PM, Jason Haar wrote:
I'm noticing a lot of SPF (and DK) lookups fail on our network (dbg:
spf: lookup timed out after 5 seconds) due to New Zealand being in the
wrong galaxy: Quite often, DNS TXT records appear to like taking >5 sec
to respond.
Now I see in SpamAssassin/Plug
I'm noticing a lot of SPF (and DK) lookups fail on our network (dbg:
spf: lookup timed out after 5 seconds) due to New Zealand being in the
wrong galaxy: Quite often, DNS TXT records appear to like taking >5 sec
to respond.
Now I see in SpamAssassin/Plugin/SPF.pm the following line:
my $timeout =
Chris Purves wrote:
>>
>
> Okay, here's the output from debug:
>
> [31302] dbg: spf: message was delivered entirely via trusted relays, not
> required
> X-Spam-Report:
> * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
That is very bad.. Mail from my system should not be trus
On Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:07 PM -0500 Rob McEwen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I'm sending this to surbl, uribl, and SA lists) With such short notice, I
don't think they are going to be super picky.
Alas, too late now. But why not the clam lists? They're the ones who'd be
most qualified
Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris Purves wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris Purves wrote:
I am running spamassassin 3.1.0 on Debian Sarge and I just installed the
correct packages to get rid of missing .pm file errors from spamd.log
during SPF checking. Now I am seeing:
Wed Feb 1 12:20:12 2006 [9
John Fleming wrote:
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
regrettable.
I have the "other sa-stats.pl" working well on my system. But I'm
apparen
Didn't I just respond about this the other day?
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 05:56:06PM -0700, Steven Manross wrote:
> href="http://www.whatever.com/secretphishersite/blah?something=blahblah";
> >http://www.paypal.com/somethingsecure/this?that=1
>
> Or is that even possible? Or is it just expensive?
http://www.whatever.com/secretphishersite/blah?something=blahblah";
>http://www.paypal.com/somethingsecure/this?that=1
...where you test what is in the href section against what they are
trying to display in the visible part of the A tag -- and if a URL is
found in the visible part of the A tag,
makes sense. thanks for the help guys (including those whose replies
dont appear here)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew.van.Eerde wrote:
Yusuf Ahmed wrote:
SCENARIO: I am the owner of "sample.com.au". I have email accounts
named "info" and "joeblow", therefore their email addresses w
Matthew.van.Eerde wrote:
> Yusuf Ahmed wrote:
>> SCENARIO: I am the owner of "sample.com.au". I have email accounts
>> named "info" and "joeblow", therefore their email addresses would be
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> PROBLEM: I am getting tonnes of spam coming through to random ema
-Original Message-
From: Yusuf Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:18:18 +1100
Subject: Re: Help with a rule
> Yes thats what I meant - I'll add x amount of points to the rule, but
> what would be a good way to write the rule?
>
> Postfix
Yusuf Ahmed wrote:
> SCENARIO: I am the owner of "sample.com.au". I have email accounts
> named "info" and "joeblow", therefore their email addresses would be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PROBLEM: I am getting tonnes of spam coming through to random email
> prefixes @sample.com.au. I
Yes thats what I meant - I'll add x amount of points to the rule, but
what would be a good way to write the rule?
Postfix and MailScanner.
Evan Platt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Yusuf Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:09:43 +1100
- Original Message -
From: "Yusuf Ahmed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
Wondering if someone can give me a hand writing a rule. I'm kind of new to
this and so running into a few problems.
SCENARIO: I am the owner of "sample.com.au". I have email accounts named
"info" and "joeblow", theref
Ray wrote:
>> spamd: handled cleanup of child pid 19888 due to SIGCHLD
>> spamd[5262]: prefork: child states: II
Ray, the one you want to look for is "prefork: server reached
--max-clients setting, consider raising it". If you see that, you may
want to look at your free RAM and, well, consider
-Original Message-
From: Yusuf Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:09:43 +1100
Subject: Help with a rule
> Wondering if someone can give me a hand writing a rule. I'm kind of new
> to this and so running into a few problems.
>
> SCENARIO:
Hi,
Wondering if someone can give me a hand writing a rule. I'm kind of new
to this and so running into a few problems.
SCENARIO: I am the owner of "sample.com.au". I have email accounts named
"info" and "joeblow", therefore their email addresses would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECT
I have a sitewide bayes DB that I'm
using and am wondering if having too large of a Bayes DB reduces it's efficiency?
I normally don't look at SA too much unless users start complaining
about misclassified mail. But as Joanne pointed out in a different
thread, my Bayes DB seems to be trained rat
RE: Virus Expert Needed For Radio Talk Show
Specifically, there is a large AM radio station in one of the top 5 largest
cities in the U.S. who is looking for an "expert" guest to discuss the Kama
Sutra Worm>
Here is the article which perked their attention and for which they are
looking for advic
Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/01/2006
08:53:22 PM:
[snip]
> I'd recommend adding a rule for jp.surbl.org
if you don't already
> have one. It's generally our best performing list currently.
A
> sample rule is mentioned under "jp - jwSpamSpy + Prolocation
data
> source" on our Quick
I just got one with content!
Well, sort of.
The HTML part contained a forged set of headers -- just the user-visible
ones you expect on an inline forward:
- Original Message -
From:
To: btxiberk@
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:33 AM
Subject: hey perl
That was it. (The target
Loren Wilton wrote:
Yep, forged. I see at least three things wrong with those headers to be
valid ebay headers. With the rest of the header bits I'm pretty sure I'd
see at least one more.
Hmm, I wonder if this might be worth using as a spam sign. If you find
this header, but no sign of eBay
spamd: handled cleanup of child pid 19888 due to SIGCHLD
spamd[5262]: prefork: child states: II
I see a lot of mention of these messages showing up in 3.1, but I have
not seen a definitive answer as to if I need to pay more attention to
them or they are just a minor/visual annoyance in the logs a
spamd: handled cleanup of child pid 19888 due to
SIGCHLD
spamd[5262]: prefork: child states: II
I see a lot of
mention of these messages showing up in 3.1, but I have not seen a
definitive answer as to if I need to pay more attention to them or they are
just a minor/visual annoyance in the
Chris Purves wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Chris Purves wrote:
>>
>>> I am running spamassassin 3.1.0 on Debian Sarge and I just installed the
>>> correct packages to get rid of missing .pm file errors from spamd.log
>>> during SPF checking. Now I am seeing:
>>>
>>> Wed Feb 1 12:20:12 2006 [964
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Duncan Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 21:58, Matthias Fuhrmann wrote:
>
> > just a question about the purpose of Long.pm. Am I right asuming, it
> > just tries to get local machines hostname and domainname. nothing else
> > additionaly. Correct? Just to ensure, i d
Still no joy. What basic tests can I perform to see if SA is working
properly please?
-- ec
On Thursday 02 February 2006 12:16 am, Loren Wilton wrote:
> Yep, forged. I see at least three things wrong with those headers to be
> valid ebay headers. With the rest of the header bits I'm pretty sure I'd
> see at least one more.
>
> Was this a phish or just a random spam?
>
> Loren
R
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
regrettable.
I have the "other sa-stats.pl" working well on my system. But I'm
apparently not pointing the "
jdow wrote:
> From: "Ole Nomann Thomsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Hi All.
>>
>> I was scanning my SA log-files, when i noticed that about 30% of the
>> "result:" -lines do not contain any "BAYES_*" score.
>
> I suspect that about 30% of your users have an untrained Bayes database.
Thanks, but
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 21:58, Matthias Fuhrmann wrote:
> just a question about the purpose of Long.pm. Am I right asuming, it
> just tries to get local machines hostname and domainname. nothing else
> additionaly. Correct? Just to ensure, i dont blow anything :)
>
> well, asuming this, a fr
34 matches
Mail list logo
