On Saturday 02 September 2006 8:46 am, SM wrote:
> At 20:22 01-09-2006, Chris wrote:
> >I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
> >Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
> >noticed the below entries. First of all, what are these ent
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:28:14 -0800, John Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
> The Register is running an article saying spam is back up to 81% of
> all email traffic due to newer versions of the Mocbot worm.
>
> If anything, my traffic has been less of late, and almost
> non-existant since in in
On Saturday 02 September 2006 15:18, mikemacfr wrote:
> I'm a bit confused?
>
> I thought amavis was the virus scanner bit? And spamassassin took care of
> the spam bit?
Amavis is a router sort of.
It takes mail from your mta, sends it thru one or more engines (spamassassin,
antivirus, and som
I'm a bit confused?
I thought amavis was the virus scanner bit? And spamassassin took care of
the spam bit?
Mike
Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>> Edit your spamd start-up script, or start-up options file (depending on
>> which OS you're running, these may be different). There should be a -L or
>> --l
Edit your spamd start-up script, or start-up options file (depending on
which OS you're running, these may be different). There should be a -L or
--local switch in that file. Remove it to enable network tests.
I have commented out this line in the spamd file and done a restart. So
this
may have
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 12:49 -0700, mikemacfr wrote:
> Ok, one of the first replies to this thread pointed to:
>
> Have you checked out http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UsingSpamAssassin
> ("Spam getting through?")?
>
>
> Which I have looked at and saw the following there:
>
> Edit your spa
Ok, one of the first replies to this thread pointed to:
Have you checked out http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UsingSpamAssassin
("Spam getting through?")?
Which I have looked at and saw the following there:
Edit your spamd start-up script, or start-up options file (depending on
which OS y
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jdow wrote:
Hm, I have a suspicion that the spam is being targeted quite
differently then. Until the end of June I used to get about 250 to
300 spams a day. I am down to 90 to 150 per day now. It's unreal.
Note that I am quite sinc
Assuming you also restarted amvis so it will see the change, you should now
be getting some more headers in your mail messages. You should see headers
similar to the following in a typical non-spam mail:
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on
morticia.wiza
> -Original Message-
> From: mikemacfr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:55 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OS X Server spam still getting through :-(
> (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26144-09; Sat, 2
Another option, is t
OK, I've done that now and restarted the mail server and postfix.
What next?
Mike
Bill Randle wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 10:59 -0700, mikemacfr wrote:
>> This reads $sa_tag_level_deflt = 2.0; # add spam info headers if at, or
>> above that level;
>>
>> at the moment, so you want me to
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 10:59 -0700, mikemacfr wrote:
> This reads $sa_tag_level_deflt = 2.0; # add spam info headers if at, or
> above that level;
>
> at the moment, so you want me to change 2.0 to -99?
Yes. At 2.0, it means that a spam will have to score 2.0 or greater
before amavis logs the spa
This reads $sa_tag_level_deflt = 2.0; # add spam info headers if at, or
above that level;
at the moment, so you want me to change 2.0 to -99?
Mike
Bill Randle wrote:
>
>
> Change $sa_tag_level_deflt to -99 in /etc/amavisd/amavisd.conf, or
> where ever the amavisd config file is located. T
This is a typical spam mail:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from murder ([unix socket])
by powerconsult.no (Cyrus v2.2.12-OS X 10.4.0) with LMTPA;
Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:15:19 +0200
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by power
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 09:59 -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > In the meantime ere is the mail I got based on your reply!
>
> > MTA-Interface: amavisd-new-2.3.3 (20050822) at mail.powerconsult.no
> > X-Spam-Scanned: using SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) at
> > mail.powerconsult.no
>
> It looks like
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jdow wrote:
> Hm, I have a suspicion that the spam is being targeted quite
> differently then. Until the end of June I used to get about 250 to
> 300 spams a day. I am down to 90 to 150 per day now. It's unreal.
> Note that I am quite sincerely pleased by this development.
...
In the meantime ere is the mail I got based on your reply!
MTA-Interface: amavisd-new-2.3.3 (20050822) at mail.powerconsult.no
X-Spam-Scanned: using SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) at
mail.powerconsult.no
It looks like you are using amvis-new to integrate SA in to the mail chain.
One of its
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:28:14 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Register is running an article saying spam is back up to 81% of all
email traffic due to newer versions of the Mocbot worm.
If anything, my tr
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Pettersson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:52 AM
> To: SpamAssassin
> Subject: Invalid date header
>
>
> Hi. I got a mail with this Date header:
> Date:
>
> which triggered this rule:
> 2.2 INVALID_DATEInvalid
Hi. I got a mail with this Date header:
Date:
which triggered this rule:
2.2 INVALID_DATEInvalid Date: header (not RFC 2822)
What's wrong with it? The <> ?
Regards,
Andreas
>From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:28:14 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>The Register is running an article saying spam is back up to 81% of all
>>email traffic due to newer versions of the Mocbot worm.
>>
>>If anything, my traffic has been le
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:10:45AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Am I missing some needed configuration somewhere, or is the
> above a problem?
>
> It seems to be happening with every message.
It's a bug in Text::Wrap. See
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5056
--
Randomly G
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 06:15:28 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:28:14 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>The Register is running an article saying spam is back up to 81% of all
>>email traffic due to newer v
At 20:22 01-09-2006, Chris wrote:
I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
noticed the below entries. First of all, what are these entries telling
[snip]
Sep 1 21:51:25 localhost spamd[109
Michael W Cocke wrote:
I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting
buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that.
Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank
subjects are junk?
(counter) examples are available on this list (see
From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:28:14 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Register is running an article saying spam is back up to 81% of all
email traffic due to newer versions of the Mocbot worm.
If anything, my traffic has been less of late,
OK, I'll take a look!
In the meantime ere is the mail I got based on your reply!
(By the way er du Norsk?)
Mike
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from murder ([unix socket])
by powerconsult.no (Cyrus v2.2.12-OS X 10.4.0) with LMTPA;
Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:54:16 +0200
On Saturday 02 September 2006 12:31, mikemacfr took the opportunity to say:
> I'm completely new to this list and am not a UNIX person.
>
> I have SpamAssassin 3.1.4 installed on our mail server together with
> Squirrel and Amavis-new.
>
> Spam is still getting through at an unacceptable rate and I
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:28:14 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The Register is running an article saying spam is back up to 81% of all
>email traffic due to newer versions of the Mocbot worm.
>
>If anything, my traffic has been less of late, and almost non-existant
>since in install
I just updated to a newer version of spamassin a few days ago.
Since then I'm getting regular error messages in my spamlog:
Sep 2 03:46:03 Ishtar spamd[13106]: (?:(?<=[\s,]))* matches null string
many times in regex; marked by <-- HERE in m/\G(?:(?<=[\s,]))* <-- HERE
\Z/ at /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.
I'm completely new to this list and am not a UNIX person.
I have SpamAssassin 3.1.4 installed on our mail server together with
Squirrel and Amavis-new.
Spam is still getting through at an unacceptable rate and I haven't got a
clue how fault find
what's going wrong?
Is there anyone who could hel
The Register is running an article saying spam is back up to 81% of all
email traffic due to newer versions of the Mocbot worm.
If anything, my traffic has been less of late, and almost non-existant
since in installed 3.1.5.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/23/mocbot_worm_zombie_surge/
--
On Friday, September 1, 2006, 8:22:42 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
> I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
> Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
> noticed the below entries. First of all, what are these entries telling
> me? Seco
I am moving my email to a new server. How do I ensure that the procmail
bayseian database and auto whitelist for each user is moved too?
Should I just copy ~/.spamassassin/* for each user?
Here is the contents for my ~/.spamassassin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/.spamassassin $ ls -l
total 37636
-rw
34 matches
Mail list logo
