Hello List:
I'm running Exim 4.61 with SA 3.1.1 on OS X with the following
start-up on spamd: /usr/bin/spamd -d -x -q -Q -L -u amavisd
--socketpath=/tmp/spamd
It seems like spamd won't scan anything over 8122 bytes. First I
thought it was encoding or something, but shortening the same messag
I'm trying to set up SA to use MySQL to store the Auto WhiteList but
it's just not working out for me. SA seems to be trying to create a lock
file on disk. The problem is that I run spamd as a user which doesn't
have a home directory. Here is what I find in my spamd log files.
@40004445b03
On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Richard Collyer wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Richard Collyer wrote:
I've changed it to a DNS server from my ISP, but so far its not
making any difference.
SA: finished scan in 13.719613 secs - hits=-1.0
BTW, if you watch the de
Richard Collyer wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Richard Collyer wrote:
I've changed it to a DNS server from my ISP, but so far its not
making any difference.
SA: finished scan in 13.719613 secs - hits=-1.0
BTW, if you watch the debug output of a message being scanned, you'll
see exactly
Andrew Doughety wrote:
Hi,
We are trying to perform DNSBL checks on incoming mail and we are
not seeing any actual DNS queries. When looking at the code it seems
that the information on which IP(s) to check is obtained from
X-Originating and X-Apparently-From headers.
No, SA should be chec
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Richard Collyer wrote:
I've changed it to a DNS server from my ISP, but so far its not making
any difference.
SA: finished scan in 13.719613 secs - hits=-1.0
BTW, if you watch the debug output of a message being scanned, you'll
see exactly where it's slow.
spam
Andrew Doughety wrote:
Hi,
We are trying to perform DNSBL checks on incoming mail and we are
not seeing any actual DNS queries. When looking at the code it seems
that the information on which IP(s) to check is obtained from
X-Originating and X-Apparently-From headers.
my understanding is
Andrew Doughety wrote:
> Hi,
> We are trying to perform DNSBL checks on incoming mail and we are
> not seeing any actual DNS queries. When looking at the code it seems
> that the information on which IP(s) to check is obtained from
> X-Originating and X-Apparently-From headers.
No, SA should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry if this has been asked ad-nauseum, but by default, the
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL is enabled.
From what I've been able to find on this topic, AWL is intended to be a
user or system maintained database of whitelisted "from" addresses.
We did nothing to crea
Andrew Doughety wrote:
Hi,
We are trying to perform DNSBL checks on incoming mail and we are
not seeing any actual DNS queries. When looking at the code it seems
that the information on which IP(s) to check is obtained from
X-Originating and X-Apparently-From headers. Grepping through th
Hi,
We are trying to perform DNSBL checks on incoming mail and we are
not seeing any actual DNS queries. When looking at the code it seems that
the information on which IP(s) to check is obtained from X-Originating and
X-Apparently-From headers. Grepping through the code I do not see these
Julian Underwood wrote:
Dear List,
I was curious how organizations typically score mail which comes from
their own domain(s). Obviously spammers will spoof the source domain in
hopes that you have whitelisted your domain or give "special treatment"
from mail originating from within your own org
Julian Underwood wrote:
> I was curious how organizations typically score mail which comes from
> their own domain(s). Obviously spammers will spoof the source domain
> in hopes that you have whitelisted your domain or give "special
> treatment" from mail originating from within your own org.
We
Dear List,
I was curious how organizations typically score mail which comes from
their own domain(s). Obviously spammers will spoof the source domain in
hopes that you have whitelisted your domain or give "special treatment"
from mail originating from within your own org.
Mail may come in from a
Herb Martin wrote:
Can anyone confirm that this will always be the case when dragging
multiple
messages into a new one? And will this be so in both
outlook and outlook
express?
I can't confirm that it WILL always be true, but I believe
that it mostly
*should* a
Richard Collyer wrote:
I've changed it to a DNS server from my ISP, but so far its not making
any difference.
SA: finished scan in 13.719613 secs - hits=-1.0
BTW, if you watch the debug output of a message being scanned, you'll
see exactly where it's slow.
spamassassin -D < non-local-tes
Richard Collyer wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...
[31974] dbg: dns: name server: 192.168.1.1, family: 2, ipv6: 0
[31974] dbg: dns: testing resolver nameservers: 192.168.1.1
[31974] dbg: dns: trying (3) google.com...
[31974] dbg: dns: looking up NS for 'google.com'
[31974] dbg: dns: NS lookup
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...
[31974] dbg: dns: name server: 192.168.1.1, family: 2, ipv6: 0
[31974] dbg: dns: testing resolver nameservers: 192.168.1.1
[31974] dbg: dns: trying (3) google.com...
[31974] dbg: dns: looking up NS for 'google.com'
[31974] dbg: dns: NS lookup of google.com using 192.
Richard Collyer wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to track down why is is tracking so long for mails to be
scanned via FreeBSD.
I am scanning then using qmail-scanner (1.25).
From what I can see the problem is coming from when e-mails are
arriving from external sources. The top log entry shows and
Hello,
I am trying to track down why is is tracking so long for mails to be
scanned via FreeBSD.
I am scanning then using qmail-scanner (1.25).
From what I can see the problem is coming from when e-mails are
arriving from external sources. The top log entry shows and e-mail from
the lan. Th
From: "Saleem Hasan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
I am new at spam filtering and have recently installed SA 3.1.1 on a
RedHat E L 3 mailserver. I am using a procmailrc to invoke SA and
.procmailrc for individual users. There are two spam folders, one for
score between 5 and 10 and the other for spa
Thanks JamesDR,
I am using POP3. The thing is that this does not happen all the time. In
fact, this has happened only 3 or 4 times in the last 100-200 spams. I did
not set any filters in Pine but there may be some set by default. I will
also check for the Pine log and Pine filter log.
Thanks.
Let's put it this way - here are the rules your message hit on my system:
Carl Chipman wrote:
>
> Content analysis details: (8.2 points, 5.0 required)
>
> 3.5 SUBJECT_DRUG_GAP_VIA
> -4.9 BAYES_00
> 0.4 URIBL_AB_SURBL
> 1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL
> 3.2 URIBL_OB_SU
> tests=BAYES_50:
> Is there a ruleset I could use add that might increase the chance of
> catching theses?
You can start by training Bayes that these are spam, it will help you a lot.
If you don't have the SARE rules, several of the files there will also help.
Loren
Saleem Hasan wrote:
Hi,
I am new at spam filtering and have recently installed SA 3.1.1 on a
RedHat E L 3 mailserver. I am using a procmailrc to invoke SA and
.procmailrc for individual users. There are two spam folders, one for
score between 5 and 10 and the other for spam score >= 10. I read
This
might help:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200505.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:)
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:33
AMTo: users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: AWL - Where,
Hi,
I am new at spam filtering and have recently installed SA 3.1.1 on a
RedHat E L 3 mailserver. I am using a procmailrc to invoke SA and
.procmailrc for individual users. There are two spam folders, one for
score between 5 and 10 and the other for spam score >= 10. I read the faq
on rounding i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry if this has been asked ad-nauseum, but by default, the
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL is enabled.
>
> From what I've been able to find on this topic, AWL is intended to be
> a user or system maintained database of whitelisted "from" addresses.
>
> We did noth
I'm getting a bunch of these
* V a l / u m $ l , 2 1*
M e r / d i a
X & n a x
S o m &
* C / a l i s $ 3 , 7 5*
A m b / e n
* V / a g r a $ 3 , 3 l*
http://www.desirominnam.com
going through my spam filters, and it's only being scored thusly:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
Sorry if this has been asked ad-nauseum,
but by default, the Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL is enabled.
From what I've been able to find on
this topic, AWL is intended to be a user or system maintained database
of whitelisted "from" addresses.
We did nothing to create or populate
this database,
Leo's pill domains. Feed several to sa-learn (gets you a high BAYES
score), make sure that net tests are enabled and do use digests (DCC, Razor
and Pyzor); Then these spam will get 30+ point scores. Even with no net
tests, your example scores > 4 points without BAYES, so training BAYES wi
with the spread of that dangerous bird disease,
online pharmacies start to add that drug to their protfolio, and
to subject lines.
So far all I have seen were spelled correctly
Wolfgang Hamann
Shantanu wrote:
> Hello
> I need to block this spam.
> http://pastebin.com/666733
> I am getting 100s of those daily for different
> accounts.
*sigh*..
Looks like I'm going to have to come out of "retirement" and make a post
SA 3.0 fix for the antidrug rules. (Note: do not download antidrug.cf
un
> > Can anyone confirm that this will always be the case when dragging
> multiple
> > messages into a new one? And will this be so in both
> outlook and outlook
> > express?
>
> I can't confirm that it WILL always be true, but I believe
> that it mostly
> *should* always be true. I've known Out
Hello
I need to block this spam.
http://pastebin.com/666733
I am getting 100s of those daily for different
accounts.
Thanks in advance.
Shantanu
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> Can anyone confirm that this will always be the case when dragging
multiple
> messages into a new one? And will this be so in both outlook and outlook
> express?
I can't confirm that it WILL always be true, but I believe that it mostly
*should* always be true. I've known Outlook to send attache
Hi,
I've got a question on Bayesian learning using the script explained here:
http://www.jousset.org/pub/sa-postfix.en.html
The plan is to let users drag multiple spam messages in a new message and
sent this to a dedicated e-mail address. On the website mentioned earlier it
is said that you need
37 matches
Mail list logo
