David Baron wrote:
On Sunday 14 May 2006 21:24, Andrew wrote:
I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011 directory
exists, all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc) are no longer
working and most all spams get through!
Took it off once again. Something needs be modi
Igor Chudov wrote:
> I have a sitewide config where I run spamc from /etc/procmailrc.
>
> Since some of my users want to disable spamassassin, I edited their
> file ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs and set required_hits to a high
> value.
>
> That does not seem to have any effect!
>
Can you show us
On Sunday 14 May 2006 21:24, Andrew wrote:
> > I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011 directory
> > exists, all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc) are no longer
> > working and most all spams get through!
> >
> > Took it off once again. Something needs be modified
> > > > I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011
> > > > directory exists, all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc)
> > > > are no longer working and most all spams get through!
> > >
> > > Your custom rules are all located in /etc/mail/spamassassin and not
> > > /usr/
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 08:55:13PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > > I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011 directory
> > > exists, all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc) are no longer
> > > working and most all spams get through!
> > Your custom rules are all locate
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 07:38:09PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Nope, at least not wrt sa-update. The files are supposed to be processed
> > during SA installation, but sa-update doesn't do that and simply installs
> > the files. We should probably change that at some point.
>
> interesting --
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:17:37PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > This immediately jumped out at me:
> >
> > -report_contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > +report_contact @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@
> >
> > Obviously the LOCAL_RULES_DIR reference in the comment is of little
> > conseq
David Baron wrote:
I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011 directory exists,
all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc) are no longer working and
most all spams get through!
Took it off once again. Something needs be modified before this can be used.
I just set
On Sunday 14 May 2006 20:15, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011 directory
> > exists, all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc) are no longer
> > working and most all spams get through!
>
> Your custom rules are all located in /etc/mail/
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 04:01:20PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011 directory
> exists,
> all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc) are no longer working and
> most all spams get through!
Your custom rules are all located in /etc/
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
One gets the idea that many in this thread have had little experience
of litigation. I don't know about the US, but in the UK, you're
talking *many* months and much paperwork. That being said. I'm so up
for suing the SOB's ... hit em where it hurts.
A small addendum, onc
One gets the idea that many in this thread have had little experience
of litigation. I don't know about the US, but in the UK, you're
talking *many* months and much paperwork. That being said. I'm so up
for suing the SOB's ... hit em where it hurts.
A small addendum, once a private prosecution is
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Saturday, May 13, 2006, 12:18:42 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm doing some research using WHOIS to find the owners of domains in the
URI blocklists and finding that many of them have the same owners. I
thing that a database of owners of the URIs that spam links
Scott Warren wrote:
You ask this like you know who the spammers are and where to find
them. If this is the case and spammers are that easy to find, why are
we not reading more articles like the one where a spammer in the
former Soviet Republic was found beaten to death in his apartment??
S
jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mouss wrote:
Rick Measham wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
... I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains.
> ... I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for
free just to get the spam to sue fo
jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
Well, Marc would have a really hard time proving HE was injured by the
spam. Therefore seeing would be annoyingly unproductive for HIM. But
the ISPs forced to hire him could sue and win. (Collecting might be
quite another kettle
I have this working fine. However, once that 0300011 directory exists,
all my custom rules (i.e. bayes, regex tests, etc) are no longer working and
most all spams get through!
Took it off once again. Something needs be modified before this can be used.
That empty .../rules000300010001 directory will prevent Spamassassin from
working so removing it if it be empty is a needed fix. I did so manually.
Enabling port 8090 allowed sa_update to work correctly so all's well that ends
well.
I would want to place spamassassin.org IP into my DMZ rather t
18 matches
Mail list logo
