Issue resolved. I needed to 'cat /var/log/syslog | grep CSTM' to debug my
rules. I'm getting my packages confused: spamassassin notices are in
/var/log/syslog while sa-exim notices are in exim's mainlog and rejectlog.
SA-Exim only logs the rules an email matches in rejectlog, and that only
happens
By the way, Chase, you MAY be bogged down in a misunderstanding. The
system local rules are ALWAYS enabled. Put them into a file with a
name that ends in ".cf" and is in the same directory as the working
local.cf file. System rules are ALWAYS allowed. Individual user rules
are not. (Rules in the s
1) Are these meant to be global rules or user rules? I presume the
latter from your phrasing below.
2) Are you putting the rules into "~/.spamassassin/user_prefs"?
3) How are you running SpamAssassin? That can make a serious difference
regarding whether or not SpamAssassin can access your us
Theo,
Well, I took the allow_user_rules line out. Some of my rules are:
#custom rules
body CSTM_INFINEX_VEN /infinex/
describe CSTM_INFINEX_VEN Message mentions Infinex Ventures
score CSTM_INFINEX_VEN 2.0
body CSTM_FONT_SIZE_EQLS_2 //
describe CSTM_FONT_SIZE_EQLS_2 Message contains html for smal
They are sending spam bounce messages based on spamassassin testing
this list.
===8<---
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
From: "Jim Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi
I've got Spamassassin 3.03 on a Debian box, and I use it through
procmail to mark all my local mail.
A few really obvious spam mails get through every day. They don't seem
to have even been tested, which I don't understand. I haven't added
any "whitelis
On Saturday 01 July 2006 23:34, Jim Evans took the opportunity to write:
> A few really obvious spam mails get through every day. They don't seem
> to have even been tested, which I don't understand. I haven't added
> any "whitelist" addresses, so why doesn't it test them? the header
> looks like:
Hi
I've got Spamassassin 3.03 on a Debian box, and I use it through
procmail to mark all my local mail.
A few really obvious spam mails get through every day. They don't seem
to have even been tested, which I don't understand. I haven't added
any "whitelist" addresses, so why doesn't it test the
On Saturday 01 July 2006 23:07, Philip Mak took the opportunity to write:
> Does SpamAssassin support SPF record checking?
Yes. You activate it by uncommenting the corresponding LoadPlugin line in
init.pre and making sure that the required Perl modules are installed.
> Or is this something I hav
Does SpamAssassin support SPF record checking?
Or is this something I have to patch into my incoming SMTP server?
Hi!
My qmail-scanner
with SA setup doubles spam entries, but not
consistentlyhas anybody else encountered this? Or doe s anybody havve a clue where I
should look? It seems SA goes thru its run twice and then makes a copy of
the email its processing...
Thanx in
advance,
Maurice
P
Loren Wilton wrote:
>>No, I was thinking of multipart/alternative where one of the
>>alternative streams is nothing but images. That doesn't strike me as
>>legitimate. Can anyone think of a scenario where images *are* a
>>legitimate alternative representation of text?
>>
>>
>
>Doesn't really h
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, LDB wrote:
> Right now, I have a promailrc script,
>
> LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
> LOGABSTRACT=all
> VERBOSE=yes
>
> SENDER=$1
> SHIFT=1
>
> # Until now, mail is untagged, you may add rules for
> # mail that must not be tagged
>
> :0 hbfw
> | /usr/bin/spamc
>
> # Now mail i
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/30/06, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah - but what I'm thinking of is something that is automatic and
reputation based rather that paying someone to certify you. In other
words your server get whitelisted because you never send spam.
Paid or otherwise, h
Right now, I have a promailrc script,
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
LOGABSTRACT=all
VERBOSE=yes
SENDER=$1
SHIFT=1
# Until now, mail is untagged, you may add rules for
# mail that must not be tagged
:0 hbfw
| /usr/bin/spamc
# Now mail is tagged by spamassassin
# You may insert other rules here
> I don't see any bugzilla for this using a search on USER_IN_WHITELIST.
> Has anyone else encountered this issue? Can anyone verify that it's
> fixed in 3.1?
I thiought someone had complained of this about a month ago, but perhaps it
was something else. This sounds like Yet Another of the pro
Definitely a bug. I would suggest trying to repro with 3.1.x, and
if it still exists, file a bug...
--j.
Bart Schaefer writes:
> We recently installed a new CentOS4 server, which comes with SA 3.0.6
> prepackaged, to serve as our local mail store (runs sendmail,
> clamassassin, spamd, and an im
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I
haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at
it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice
as much!
Is there a local work
On 6/30/2006 10:19 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on
On 6/30/2006 10:46 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
Now for the "3 tests" as they apply to my non-hypothetical case.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:45 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
You can not add your MSA to your internal_networks unless you can do one
of the following:
- have all your MSA users use SM
20 matches
Mail list logo
