At 10:48 PM 2/17/2006, you wrote:
Today I got a spam message which seems, at least for a newbie like me,
succeeded in passing SA for some reason!
I'm calling SA through amavisd-new and have my Rules Du Jour updated
(manual updates so far)
I would like to block such messages therefore, I'm seeki
Whenever I use :
#smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd -o
content_filter=spam
spam unix - n n - - pipe
user=spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -f -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f
${sende
Today I got a spam message which seems, at least for a newbie like me,
succeeded in passing SA for some reason!
I'm calling SA through amavisd-new and have my Rules Du Jour updated
(manual updates so far)
I would like to block such messages therefore, I'm seeking your kind
assistance in determini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi theo,
>> is there a way to turn off logging for these *particular* errors? my logs
>> are getting bloated
>> with a heavy prevalence of these two:
>
> No. However, you can disable the loadplugin lines in the config file so that
> the erro
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 07:02:54PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
> is there a way to turn off logging for these *particular* errors? my logs
> are getting bloated
> with a heavy prevalence of these two:
No. However, you can disable the loadplugin lines in the config file so that
the errors stop bei
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi,
i've SA-head built on OSX 10.4.5.
i've brought the fact that these missing-plugin errors keep showing up a number
of times to no
avail ... fair nuf.
is there a way to turn off logging for these *particular* errors? my logs are
getting b
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 5:34:57 PM, Matthew Eerde wrote:
> It's not particularly important how many URLs the lists have in
> common. What is important is how many *false positives* the
> lists have in common... or more to the point, whether a given "good" URL
> is more likely to be on (say)
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 4:04:42 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> I consider that "highly similar" for JP, SC, AB, OB and WS.
As similar as 30 and 40, and 0, .3 and 7 are, I suppose.
>>
>>> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit fr
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 3:36:07 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit from other
> lists or are they all separately maintained?
The different SURBL lists are all separately maintained. Only AB
and SC share a data source, namely SpamCop user
Odd - no _RAZOR_ tag to return the confidence level?
Matt Kettler wrote:
>>> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit
>>> from other lists or are they all separately maintained?
>>
>> They use different datasources and no cross links between them. If
>> there is a real nasty one we could/would talk about it on the
>> private
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 00:05
> To: Raymond Dijkxhoorn
> Cc: jdow; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> > Hi!
>
> >>>
> I consider t
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>>>
I consider that "highly similar" for JP, SC, AB, OB and WS.
>>>
>>> As similar as 30 and 40, and 0, .3 and 7 are, I suppose.
>
>> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit from
>> other
>> lists or are they all separately maintained?
Chris Santerre a écrit :
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:28 PM
>>To: jdow
>>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>>
>
> SNIP
>
>>also, when someone's filter misses spam, the comm
Hi!
0.293 0.3406 0.1.000 0.470.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL
0.000 0. 0.0.500 0.420.00 URIBL_RED
0.000 0. 0.0.500 0.420.01 T_URIBL_XS_SURBL
37.539 42.4763 7.26260.854 0.380.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL
0.548 0.3446 1.79740.
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 7:19:50 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:13:36 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
I'm only presenting evidence of accuracy problems in relation to why the
URIBLs collectively wield a great dea
> -Original Message-
> From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 21:34
> To: Dallas L. Engelken
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> > The result will be no URIBL only F
Matt Kettler wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
installs if you make these changes.
I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
A grep of my
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 18:47
> To: Matt Kettler
> Cc: Jeff Chan; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> > I'll even re-quote myself:
> >> I pers
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
>> The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
>> shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
>> installs if you make these changes.
>
> I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
>
> A grep of my logs
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
installs if you make these changes.
I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
A grep of my logs from this wee
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
installs if you make these changes.
I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
A grep of my logs from this week shows that 1.1% of my spam
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>
>> There may be some value in not lumping together URIBL.com and
>> SURBL.org lists. As you can see the performance of the lists are
>> different, and the way they're created is different too. That
>> makes it harder for us to respond to comments that s
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 05:14
> To: Dallas L. Engelken
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: M
Christer Edwards wrote:
Basic info:
spamassassin 3.0.4-2 (ubuntu repo package)
Ubuntu 5.10 (Breezy)
Postfix 2.2.4-1ubuntu2 (ubuntu repo package)
Used in my postfix main/master.cf
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
This effectively blocks A LOT of attempted spam f
Basic info:
spamassassin 3.0.4-2 (ubuntu repo package)
Ubuntu 5.10 (Breezy)
Postfix 2.2.4-1ubuntu2 (ubuntu repo package)
Used in my postfix main/master.cf
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
This effectively blocks A LOT of attempted spam from known addresses,
which
Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
- Original Message -
Thanks, that explains something. What man page do I read up
on to be able to figure out how to expire the bayes db
manually? I've a quick look but don't see anything jumping
out at me.
Found it in sa-learn, I've setup a cronjob to run it once a
>- Original Message -
>Thanks, that explains something. What man page do I read up
>on to be able to figure out how to expire the bayes db
>manually? I've a quick look but don't see anything jumping
>out at me.
Found it in sa-learn, I've setup a cronjob to run it once a
day. We'll see how
Title: RE: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
> -Original Message-
> From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:28 PM
> To: jdow
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
SNIP
>
> also, when someone's filter miss
- Original Message -
>spamc -t only controls the timeout of the spamc client.
>spamd continues to process the message.
>
>Scan times of 798 seconds are probably a result of a bayes
>expiry. If auto expiry is enabled (default) I'd disable
>it and run a manually expiry as a cron job.
>
>
I am running spamd/spamc and have spamc launching with "-t
55". Yet I'm finding that scans are taking as long as 798
seconds to complete, not alot of them but the question is
why isn't it timing out?
Any suggestions on what to look for?
spamc -t only controls the timeout of the spamc client. s
Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
> I am running spamd/spamc and have spamc launching with "-t
> 55". Yet I'm finding that scans are taking as long as 798
> seconds to complete, not alot of them but the question is
> why isn't it timing out?
>
> Any suggestions on what to look for?
If it's just a few, maybe
Matt Kettler wrote:
> I'll even re-quote myself:
>> I personally would like to see some statistics, but at this point, we
>> don't have any test data on this so we're arguing your theory vs mine.
> And your quote that I was counter-pointing:
>> As you can see the performance of the lists are dif
Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
I am running spamd/spamc and have spamc launching with "-t
55". Yet I'm finding that scans are taking as long as 798
seconds to complete, not alot of them but the question is
why isn't it timing out?
Any suggestions on what to look for?
spamc -t only controls the timeout
I am running spamd/spamc and have spamc launching with "-t
55". Yet I'm finding that scans are taking as long as 798
seconds to complete, not alot of them but the question is
why isn't it timing out?
Any suggestions on what to look for?
=
Kevin W. Gagel
Network Adm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:22:30 +0100 (CET), Eduardo Gimeno wrote:
>Thanks for the reply. I found the sample .procmailrc file at some
>documentation page... I would expect it beign case sensitive to...
>Well, then I leave the rule as "^X-Spam-Status: Yes
jdow a écrit :
> Rune, there are two canonical means of solving that petty issue. If
> there is someone likely to send you such a message white list her. Or
> simply munge the name, for example http://uri-here-M/uri/.
>
I would like to whitelist all legitimate senders. unfortunately, I don't
have
Thanks - that's what I needed.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I see a section on template tags but it doesn't show what file these
tags are used in. I'm trying to add the vayes score to the header. How
do I do that?
with a "add_header" command in local.cf.
add_
Zdenko Aka wrote:
On 2/17/06, Jim Maul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zdenko Aka wrote:
hi to all,
i've installed SA 3.1.0 on Fedora (qmail) using yum install
spamassassin command.
after that, i've tried to find any detailed manual for setting it up
but no luck...
can you seuggest me any link or
Zdenko Aka wrote:
> hi to all,
>
> i've installed SA 3.1.0 on Fedora (qmail) using yum install
> spamassassin command.
>
> after that, i've tried to find any detailed manual for setting it up
> but no luck...
> can you seuggest me any link or give me few tipe&tricks?
>
If you want to call it di
Zdenko Aka wrote:
hi to all,
i've installed SA 3.1.0 on Fedora (qmail) using yum install
spamassassin command.
after that, i've tried to find any detailed manual for setting it up
but no luck...
can you seuggest me any link or give me few tipe&tricks?
thanks in advance,
zdenko
like http:/
hi to all,
i've installed SA 3.1.0 on Fedora (qmail) using yum install
spamassassin command.
after that, i've tried to find any detailed manual for setting it up
but no luck...
can you seuggest me any link or give me few tipe&tricks?
thanks in advance,
zdenko
Marc Perkel wrote:
> I see a section on template tags but it doesn't show what file these
> tags are used in. I'm trying to add the vayes score to the header. How
> do I do that?
with a "add_header" command in local.cf.
add_header all BayesScore _BAYES_
Will add a header called "X-Spam-BayesScor
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
>
> Hi Everybody ,
>
> I started spamassassin score from 6.5 , now I’m watching the mail flow
> and I saw that if mails are really a mail they have a point bettween
> 0.1 – 1.x , and some of spams are getting score between 5.0 – 5.9 and
> because of this I couldn’t catch it
Title: Message
We drop spam at
5.0 and optionally file 4.0-4.99 mail in the user's Junk E-mail if they have
that folder.
-Original Message-From: Vahric MUHTARYAN
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 8:25
AMTo: users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: FW: Spam
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
>
> I started spamassassin score from 6.5 , now Im watching the mail
> flow and I saw that if mails are really a mail they have a point
> bettween 0.1 - 1.x , and some of spams are getting score between 5.0
> - 5.9 and because of this I couldnt catch it . Actually I know
Hi Everybody ,
I started spamassassin score from
6.5 , now I’m watching the mail flow and I saw that if mails are really a
mail they have a point bettween 0.1 – 1.x , and some of spams are getting
score between 5.0 – 5.9 and because of this I couldn’t catch it .
Actually I know I ca
Jeff Chan wrote:
>
>> I don't see the difference from the recent results posted by Theo.
>>
>
> That's like saying two different RBLs that hit a similar
> percentage of spams must therefore have the same policies, even
> when they may have no data in common. It's not a conclusion that
> can b
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 7:19:50 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:13:36 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>
>>> I'm only presenting evidence of accuracy problems in relation to why the
>>> URIBLs collectively wield a great deal of power in SpamAssassin
Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:13:36 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> I'm only presenting evidence of accuracy problems in relation to why the
>> URIBLs collectively wield a great deal of power in SpamAssassin scoring.
>> I'm not really complaining about uribl.com, I'm complain
I see a section on template tags but it doesn't show what file these
tags are used in. I'm trying to add the vayes score to the header. How
do I do that?
Marc Perkel wrote:
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 05:36:32PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why is spamd deciding what IP addresses are unauthorized when I
told it to listen on all ports.
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 05:36:32PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why is spamd deciding what IP addresses are unauthorized when I
told it to listen on all ports.
Just beca
Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions, both on and offlist.
Unfortunately nothing seems to work so I suppose I will just resort to
starting spamd in another way until I find the answer. I realize this
wasn't a SA problem per se, but I appreciate the time and efforts to help.
Cheers,
Gle
Marc Perkel wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 05:36:32PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why is spamd deciding what IP addresses are unauthorized when I
told it to listen on all ports.
Just because it's li
Cian Davis wrote:
Still getting the same (I did confirm that the spamd process was running
with the correct arguments).
The problem here is that (for some reason) it's not expanding %l to the
username.
When you used this, did the spamd process su to the user involved?
I used to always run spa
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Cian Davis wrote:
>> Rick Macdougall wrote:
>> I tried this and it didn't work. I edited /etc/default/spamassassin and
>> changed the options to OPTIONS="--create-prefs --max-children 5
>> --helper-home-dir --virtual-config-dir=/config/%l/.spamassassin -x"
>>
>> The result
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 05:36:32PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why is spamd deciding what IP addresses are unauthorized when I told it
to listen on all ports.
Cian Davis wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
I tried this and it didn't work. I edited /etc/default/spamassassin and
changed the options to OPTIONS="--create-prefs --max-children 5
--helper-home-dir --virtual-config-dir=/config/%l/.spamassassin -x"
The result was SA creating a directory /config/.spa
You need to restart amavisd-new which uses the spamassassin-classes
internally.
So no need to run spamd (if you do).
Applies only if you do spamchecking via amavisd-new, of course
ahh OK thanks - so after a --lint i need to restart amavisd aswell - no
i don't run spamd
thanks
Hi,
You need to restart amavisd-new which uses the spamassassin-classes
internally.
So no need to run spamd (if you do).
Applies only if you do spamchecking via amavisd-new, of course
Dirk
Tom Brown schrieb:
Hi
I have been manually tweaking some rules to increase their score and
then doi
Hi
I have been manually tweaking some rules to increase their score and
then doing a spamassassin --lint on the rules however it seems my score
increases have not taken effect
eg
No, hits=3.675 tagged_above=0 required=5
tests=[DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06=2.007, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=
On Thursday 16 February 2006 21:05, jdow wrote:
> ...
>> The URL-lists are made in a different manner.
>>
>> Take for example - a fully legit message from one friend to another
>> that contains something like this:
>>
>>
>> Hi $name, god I'm getting tired of all the spam we're receiving about
>> ht
On Friday 17 February 2006 07:22, Loren Wilton wrote:
> Well that's too much work to turn that back into something I can run here.
> It should probably have scored moderately well.
>
> I do notice this though:
> > tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
> > Received: from -1225665360 ([
Dallas Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 01:09
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:42:19PM -, Dallas Engelken wrote:
So.. I have mov
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Cian Davis wrote:
>> Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie wrote:
>>> Cian Davis wrote:
>>>
Hi,
I'm wondering if I can specify a different path for configs in instead
of /home/$USER/.spamassassin. I want to read them from
/config/$USER/.spamassassin/user_pref
66 matches
Mail list logo
