> Thanks Loren, so I guess the best rule would be to upgrade each time a new
> version is released whether its minor or major that way something like
this
> shouldn't happen again.
Well I don't know about that. You would have hit this complaint in lint one
release sooner, and might have had more
Hello Phil,
Sunday, May 28, 2006, 11:20:05 AM, you wrote:
PS> Hi there,
PS> So I searched (a lot) for solutions. I only found this one in the SA rules :
PS> SARE_TOCC_BCC_MANY
PS> in the 70_SARE_header0.cf file.
PS> By default, the score is set to 0...
PS> Then I looked at the SARE file.
PS> Th
I found my problem. I had some custom definitions that used
eval:check_razor2_range. I deleted the custom definitions and the error
went away.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Hermann
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 02:17 PM
To: users@spamassassin
Phil (Sphinx) wrote on Sun, 28 May 2006 20:49:41 +0200:
> I don't think they do not appear... because when I test it myself, with
> the SARE Bcc rule, it seems to work :
The bcc is either stripped out or ignored by an MTA if it is in the header
of a mail because it is useless there and can comp
Dan O'Brien axonsolutions.com> writes:
>
> Just started using Razor again... Have SA 3.1.2 installed from CPAN on
> stock CentOS 4.3 w/ updates. SA 3.1.1 results the same. Razor Agents at
> 2.8.1. When I issue a "spamassassin --lint" I get the following error:
>
> [17261] warn: razor2: raz
On 5/28/06, Phil (Sphinx) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really don't understand.
I haven't attempted to figure out what the SARE rule is doing, I'm afraid.
Do you think I should ask the exim-users list ?
If the goal is to limit the volume of mail that any particular user
can cause to be del
Hi,
Thanks for the quick answer.
Bart Schaefer a écrit :
On 5/28/06, Phil (Sphinx) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also tried to set up my own rule : header NETW_BCC_MANY ^Bcc =~
/,.*,.*,/
The Bcc header is stripped out by the transport system, so you can't
compare on it directly.
Yes, I've
On 5/28/06, Phil (Sphinx) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also tried to set up my own rule :
header NETW_BCC_MANY ^Bcc =~ /,.*,.*,/
The Bcc header is stripped out by the transport system, so you can't
compare on it directly. What you have to discover is whether there
are a lot of recipients in t
Hi there,
Our SpamA version is: 3.0.3 Running on Perl : 5.8.4.
Our serveurs only run Debian, stable, and are up to date.
We have got exim, clamscan, and SpamA. But we do not use any Procmail.
Since our mail server (www.mezimail.com) is supposed to be opened (free
service to promote OpenSource s
On 5/28/06, JP Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a way to strip the X-Spam-Flag: NO on RCPT before any other
processing is done?
Maybe.
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.62/doc/html/spec_html/ch43.html#SECTheadersaddrem
AOL in their infinite wisdom has decided to add the header X-Spam-Flag: NO to their outgoing messages.Due to the way I have Spamassassin set up with exim this causes any message from AOL to be considered spam.Is there a way to strip the X-Spam-Flag: NO on RCPT before any other processing is done?
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:02 pm, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > Thanks, I believe I see what you're saying. I have no idea either why
> > it worked fine in 3.1.0. I've commented out the internal_networks
> > entry for now and everything lints fine now.
>
> 'worked fine' and 'linted clean' may be two dif
On Tuesday, May 9, 2006, 12:47:46 PM, wrote:
> X-Spam-Report:
> * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
> * 1.7 EXCUSE_6 BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
> * 3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
> * [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
13 matches
Mail list logo
