Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:21:16 +0700, Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rol
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:21:16 +0700, Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
> From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
>not applied to this mail.
>
>X-Spam-Report:
> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> * 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
>X-S
jdow wrote:
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 requi
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.2 tests
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.2 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SARE_SPEC_ROLEX
au
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:21:00AM +0700, Beast wrote:
> From my understanding, SA should automatically learn any mail which has
> score > 12 as spam and < 0.2 as a ham. Am I correct?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AutolearningNotWorking
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"In politics, absurdi
local.cf:
bayes_auto_learn 1
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 0.2
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 12.0
spam:
-
*X-Spam-Status:* Yes, score=17.9 required=5.2
tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,ADVANCE_FEE_2,
ADVANCE_FEE_3,ADVANCE_FEE_4,BAYES_99,DEAR_FRIEND,HTML_00_10,
HTM
On Sunday 13 August 2006 02:12, David Baron wrote:
> Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
> rulesets?
The intent of Razor is to use hashes of the body to identify spam by
comparing it to previously reported spam.Spam previously trapped by
other means is report
Could it be because the use the following Content Type?
Content-Type: audio/x-wav; name="hwrs.exe"
disguising a .exe as a wav?
On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:17 PM, jdow wrote:
SpamAssassin is not an anti-virus tool.
{^_^}
- Original Message - From: "Robert Nicholson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 8/13/2006 4:49 PM, DAve wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Hello all,
For those of you interested in SpamAssassin's sa-update, I've created
sa-update channels for all of the rules found at the SpamAssassin Rules
Emporium website (http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.h
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:41 AM, John D. Hardin wrote:
There still remains the question about what **exactly** should the
numerator and the denominator be when calculating that percentage?
Any ideas yet?
Not from me.
I don't know either. I base the gen
channel update will fail) since the file doesn't pass a --lint test if
the SPF plugin isn't enabled. I've sent mail to Bob about this. I'm
hoping that he adds the missing ifplugin lines soon. See SA bug 5044.
Bob's been REAL busy lately on his day job, but we're hoping he will get a
little b
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> I like the idea of an RBL gives ratings instead of binary values.
> That's why I thought of it being a "confidence percentage" instead
> of just a "yes, we have them listed in the zone". How to build
> that confidence rating is another matter entirely.
T
SpamAssassin is not an anti-virus tool.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Are you saying that 25_antivirus.cf doesn't have MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE
in 3.11?
On Aug 13, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
Because MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE didn't hit o
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sun, August 13, 2006 02:11, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
>
> 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> based on the returned IP look? Can/does S
On 8/13/2006 4:49 PM, DAve wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Hello all,
For those of you interested in SpamAssassin's sa-update, I've created
sa-update channels for all of the rules found at the SpamAssassin Rules
Emporium website (http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm).
Ya stole my thunder
On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:41 AM, John D. Hardin wrote:
There still remains the question about what **exactly** should the
numerator and the denominator be when calculating that percentage?
Any ideas yet?
Not from me.
I don't know either. I base the general idea on the IronPort "Sender
Base
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Hello all,
For those of you interested in SpamAssassin's sa-update, I've created
sa-update channels for all of the rules found at the SpamAssassin Rules
Emporium website (http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm).
Ya stole my thunder. I just came in from running a chain
Do I have to specifically enable that plugin? I have that installed.On Aug 13, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight.ie wrote: Accepting to folder lists/unix/spamassassin-usersFrom: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight.ie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: August 13, 2006 3:22:04 PM CDTTo: Robert Nicho
Robert Nicholson wrote:
> Are you saying that 25_antivirus.cf doesn't have MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE in
> 3.11?
>
That requires an extra plugin from what I can see:
# Requires the Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AntiVirus plugin be loaded.
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Quality Business Ho
Are you saying that 25_antivirus.cf doesn't have MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE in 3.11?On Aug 13, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:Because MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE didn't hit on that message? Because MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE was a 2.x rule that was deleted in 3.0 and you are runing 3.1.1? Loren- Ori
Because MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE didn't hit on that message?
Because MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE was a 2.x rule that was deleted in 3.0 and you
are runing 3.1.1?
Loren
- Original Message -
From:
Robert
Nicholson
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, Augus
Why isn'tscore MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 20bumping the score up on these mails that have .exe attachments?Begin forwarded message:From: "Microsoft Internet Message Delivery System" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: August 13, 2006 2:41:15 PM CDTTo: "Network Client" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: ReportX-Spam-Dcc: :
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, David Cary Hart wrote:
> I don't disagree with any of this. In fact, this could be a very
> powerful economic boycott which is why I thought about it. I am
> only pointing our the administrative difficulties.
>
> How would you suggest the query mechanism works? I Most whois
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
decoder wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I have improved the original OcrPlugin (found at
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OcrPlugin), so it contains
> fuzzy matching. Like that, mistakes made by the OCR recognition or
> intentional obfuscations in the t
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
>
> Registrars' Terms of Service should be publicly available for
> review; standards for ToS treatment of spammer behavior should be
> fairly easy to develop and apply.
>
> Registrars' responsiveness to compla
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, David Cary Hart wrote:
> > > b) have an RBL which returns different values for different
> > > confidence levels.
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> > based on the returned IP look?
>
> I actually considered doing this. However:
>
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:11:34 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > If someone does make a Registrar RBL and a Name Server RBL (both
> > of which are good ideas), _PLEASE_ do something like this:
> >
> > a) have two lists for each R
So one does not need to actually use Razor explicitely?
One does not need to use razor at all. It is a network test, and you can
run with network test disabled. You can also run with network tests
enabled, but specifically disable Razor. And I'm sure there are many admins
that do this for
On Sunday 13 August 2006 18:44, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Michael Di Martino wrote:
> > So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
>
> Razor compares MIME part hashes and URI domain hashes to a central
> database where people have reported that "this is spa
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Michael Di Martino wrote:
> > Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
> > rulesets?
>
> So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
The basic difference is that SA rules try to analyze the message to
determine "does this message look like spam?
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Michael Di Martino wrote:
> So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
Razor compares MIME part hashes and URI domain hashes to a central
database where people have reported that "this is spam".
SA's ruleset looks for spammy components of messages, inclu
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Sun, August 13, 2006 02:11, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 ... 127.0.0.100 perhaps? How would a rule to score points
> > based on the returned IP look? Can/does SA cache the returned IP and
> > test
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Rob McEwen wrote:
> >I'm not sure zone transfers will be feasible, since the registrar
> >determination will be made dynamically.
>
> I think, to prevent processing overloads, you might want to cache
> results at least for a period of minutes and not recalculate
> results for
Michael Di Martino writes:
> > Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
> > rulesets?
> >
>
> So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
it's entirely different -- it's a hash-sharing system, with parts
similar to SURBL. Hard to tell, really, though, as it's prop
> Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
> rulesets?
>
So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
Regards,
Michael Di Martino
Director of MIS
The telx Group
Office: 212 480 3300 X.2022
Cell: 646 207 6603
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Sent from my B
On Sun, August 13, 2006 10:46, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
> What can I do to prevent this from happening?
generic there is 2 solutions
1: stop using forwarding
2: setup trusted_networks to include ip of the forwarding mta's ip
both should help on your problem
forwarding realy sooks
--
Benny
> -Original Message-
> From: David Baron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 6:12 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Razor vs Pyzor
>
>
> Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
> rulesets?
>
Pyzor was a fork of razor
John Rudd wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>>> It is very easy to unsubscribe at
>>> genutrust.com/trust . It would be impossible to get all the
>>
>> Even easier to add scores to SA rules so that thousands of users don't
>> have to individually unsubscribe from yo
Loren Wilton wrote:
I've noticed a problem. We receive a few legit mails that has
travelled through a forwarder. That causes some problems for the SPF
check.
Since the mail claiming to be from hotmail clearly doesn't arrive
directly from one of the machines listed in hotmail's spf record, the
Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
rulesets?
I've noticed a problem. We receive a few legit mails that has travelled
through a forwarder. That causes some problems for the SPF check.
Since the mail claiming to be from hotmail clearly doesn't arrive directly
from one of the machines listed in hotmail's spf record, the SPF_SOFTFAIL
kicks in
Hi all.
I've noticed a problem. We receive a few legit mails that has travelled
through a forwarder. That causes some problems for the SPF check.
Since the mail claiming to be from hotmail clearly doesn't arrive
directly from one of the machines listed in hotmail's spf record, the
SPF_SOFTFAIL
Hello all,
For those of you interested in SpamAssassin's sa-update, I've created
sa-update channels for all of the rules found at the SpamAssassin Rules
Emporium website (http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm).
Brief directions for use are as follows:
- download the channels' GPG key from:
Hello,
I have installed MailScanner (4.55.10-3) on a solaris 10 (x86) box.
MailScanner is using SpamAssassin 3.1.4
I'm also using postfix and MailScanner is running as the user postfix.
MailScanner, in debugging mode, is going fine.
When I run spamassassin -D --lint (as user postfix) all is goi
45 matches
Mail list logo
