I don't really have the background to understand it properly I'm afraid. I
had someone else
install and setup this for me but he's no longer available to check this out
for me.
Sorry to be a pain. Answering is not compulsery and I understand your
frustration at my incompetence.
If I could find s
On Mon, September 4, 2006 03:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So I put the ImageInfo.pm file in the spamassassin directory and made sure
> that in the init.pre I have
> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ImageInfo
>
> What am I doing wrong?
loadplugin foo::bar::module
the version
Hi,
All the LARGO tests and our own custom rules notwithstanding , some
image spams still get thru.
But spams like these are absolutely pointless.
http://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/buildup.eml.txt
I dont get any message from this spam , atleast on my evolution client.
I doubt if this some spam-for-ou
>>
>> Rick Roe wrote:
>> > I get a lot of spam whose From addresses are users that don't exist on
>> > my system (random names like [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc).
>> > I recently set up a scheme to manually blacklist all From addresses on
>> > my domains and un-blacklist the fifty
: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Christian Purnomo wrote:
:
: > I am having so much trouble at present that some people are using my
: > email address to send their spam messages, in return I get hundreds and
: > hundres of non-delivery email + other misc reply such as out of office.
Thanks All who have re
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 10:27:55PM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> Sa coach sends stream to spamd with 'TELL' protocol.
> It then calls the equivalent of 'spamassassin -r' (for spam) or '-z for
> ham' or -f for forget.
>
> Do I need to call sa-learn --ham and sa-learn --spam also?
No.
> If I c
Found it, changed it, seems to work like a charm.
Now let's see if the new rules actually catch more spam than the basic
stable install. :-)
Thanks again
Miles
I never took the time to set up RulesDuJour or study which SARE rules might
be the most appropriate for me. This thread was j
Found it, changed it, seems to work like a charm.
Now let's see if the new rules actually catch more spam than the basic
stable install. :-)
Thanks again
Miles
Gary V wrote:
The patch is for newer versions of amavisd-new. You can manually add
the necessary line.
edit /usr/sbin/amavi
Hi Folks,
So far, so good - thanks for all the input!
I did the basic upgrade from backports, reloaded amavis and postfix, and
all seems to be working just fine (note that I discovered that I also had
to upgrade spamc, separately, from backports).
One follow-up question:
Gary V wrote:
If yo
I am working an a program that accepts spamassassin 'TELL' (learning)
reports (see the new 'spamassassin coach' for outlook and thunderbird)
Sa coach sends stream to spamd with 'TELL' protocol.
It then calls the equivalent of 'spamassassin -r' (for spam) or '-z for
ham' or -f for forget.
Do I nee
Hi Folks,
So far, so good - thanks for all the input!
I did the basic upgrade from backports, reloaded amavis and postfix, and
all seems to be working just fine (note that I discovered that I also
had to upgrade spamc, separately, from backports).
One follow-up question:
Gary V wrote:
If yo
hi,
I placed 70_imageinfo.cf in the spamassassin directory and got the error
message of:
failed to create instance of plugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ImageInfo:
Can't locate object method "new" via package
"Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ImageInfo" (perhaps you forgot to load
"Mail::SpamAssassi
I agree. The only advantage as of today is sarge-backports is at 3.1.3
and test/unstable is at 3.1.4. Hopefully that will not be the case for
long, and when sarge-backports gets a little more up to date, upgrading
from this point is trivial.
Gary V
Debian Volatile Sloppy repository happil
Am 04.09.2006 um 01:51 schrieb Gary V:
Since there is a good backport available and maintained there is
really no advantage to pulling in the testing version. The backport
one would be safer in the sense of being less likely to have your
system get into a confusing state of mismatched packages,
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
> be just a bit safer.
Since there is a good backport available and maintained there is
really no advantage to pulling in the testing version. The backport
one would be safer in the sense of being less
John Andersen wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 21:25, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, August 31, 2006 05:41, Rick Roe wrote:
like there should be a simpler, more automatic way to do this. Am I
missing something?
in postfix main.cf
smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender = yes
Won't
Rick Roe wrote:
I get a lot of spam whose From addresses are users that don't exist on
my system (random names like [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc).
I recently set up a scheme to manually blacklist all From addresses on
my domains and un-blacklist the fifty or so "real" addresses mai
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
> be just a bit safer.
Since there is a good backport available and maintained there is
really no advantage to pulling in the testing version. The backport
one would be safer in the sense of being less
On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:14, mikemacfr wrote:
> OK, but isn't spamd the "settings" file for spamassassin?
No.
> How does spamassassin know how to work if spamd is not used when amavis is
> doing the routing?
Amavis calls spamassassin directly.
Mike, with all due respect, these questio
Thanks Gary!
Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
be just a bit safer.
Miles
Gary V wrote:
Hi Folks,
Just came across this thread in the archives, and I have the same
basic question re. upgrading to a newer version of spamassassin on
Debian stable.
But.
Just got a spam for a blog spamming tool named "Blog Blaster". It
didn't score high enough to be auto-discarded, so I added some rules.
I case anybody else is interested:
describe BBLAST_01 Blog Blaster
body BBLAST_01 /Blog\s+Blaster/
scoreBBLAST_01 1.00
describe BBLAST_02 Blog Blaster y
Hi Folks,
Just came across this thread in the archives, and I have the same basic
question re. upgrading to a newer version of spamassassin on Debian stable.
But... unlike Raymond Wan, I'm accessing spamassassin with postfix and
amavisd-new. The current install is already set up to run razor
Hi Folks,
Just came across this thread in the archives, and I have the same basic
question re. upgrading to a newer version of spamassassin on Debian stable.
But... unlike Raymond Wan, I'm accessing spamassassin with postfix and
amavisd-new. The current install is already set up to run razor
From: "Andreas Pettersson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I need some help with understanding why some of the below rules
triggered on these headers..
Received: from baym-sm1.msgr.hotmail.com ([207.46.1.190])
by mail.mydomain.com with esmtp
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1GJcP7-00063q-JH
I need some help with understanding why some of the below rules triggered
on these headers..
2.2 INVALID_DATE Invalid Date: header (not RFC 2822)
2.3 FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVDForged hotmail.com 'Received:' header found
0.3 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPARTSpam tool pattern in MIME boundar
Do this stats from our server give you (or anyone else) any clue about
whats
causing
spam to get through?
http://65.170.183.59:16080/amavis-stats/
This can only be a guess without more data. However it is obvious your mail
volume is up greatly in the past two months, and the spam detection r
OK, but isn't spamd the "settings" file for spamassassin?
How does spamassassin know how to work if spamd is not used when amavis is
doing the routing?
And if spamassissin is still the "anti-spammer" where do I tell it that
it's
not doing
SA is a really big bunch of perl modules that process
I need some help with understanding why some of the below rules
triggered on these headers..
Received: from baym-sm1.msgr.hotmail.com ([207.46.1.190])
by mail.mydomain.com with esmtp
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1GJcP7-00063q-JH
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:4
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 04:22:07 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:10:25 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:03, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT),
From: "Nigel Frankcom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:10:25 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:03, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jdow wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:10:14 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason)
wrote:
>
>John Andersen writes:
>> On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:03, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jdow wrote:
John Andersen writes:
> On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:03, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jdow wrote:
> > >> Hm, I have a suspicion that the spam is being targeted quite
> > >> differen
John, I was just in on your post about spam levels.
Do this stats from our server give you (or anyone else) any clue about whats
causing
spam to get through?
http://65.170.183.59:16080/amavis-stats/
Mike
John Andersen wrote:
>
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 15:18, mikemacfr wrote:
>> I'm a
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:10:25 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:03, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jdow wrote:
>> >> Hm, I have a suspicion that
OK, but isn't spamd the "settings" file for spamassassin?
How does spamassassin know how to work if spamd is not used when amavis is
doing the routing?
And if spamassissin is still the "anti-spammer" where do I tell it that it's
not doing
it's job properly?
Thanks by the way for all the feedback
On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:03, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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 use
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 p
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 22:13:28 -0400, David Cary Hart
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
>>
>>
38 matches
Mail list logo
