jdow skrev:
From: "Logan Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Bo Mellberg wrote:
It seems like the exim-users database is being touched regularly, so
I'm guessing that it has been set up by apt-get in some
"auto-learning" state.
Yes, you might want to check whatever's running Spa
what is the current home of the ZMI (german) ruleset?
Wolfgang Hamann
David Reta wrote:
>
> I am running spamassassin 3.1.5 which is being called from mimedefang.
> I am using bayes over nfs which is shared between 2 mail relays.
>
Not that it's causing your problem.. but Ouch. Why share over NFS? use a
mysql database, you'll get substantially better performance, and
From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 08:47:19PM -0700, jdow wrote:
I've been contemplating that to a degree. It would be nice if I could
use the standard rule paths and designate one extra directory for
included rules from it. Then I could run, for a two user insta
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 08:47:19PM -0700, jdow wrote:
> I've been contemplating that to a degree. It would be nice if I could
> use the standard rule paths and designate one extra directory for
> included rules from it. Then I could run, for a two user installation,
> a pair of spamd processes with
From: "SM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# DKIM and DK-based whitelisting may be used reliably:
score USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST -3.0
whitelist_from_dkim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from_dk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This approach is better.
While I am in a silly mood something like this might be nice
w
From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's also worth noting that allow_user_rules makes spamd less efficient,
at a minimum because it has to rebuild all of the rule eval strings for
every message.
IMO, don't enable allow_user_rules unless you really need to do it.
I've been contemplati
on a related note: How do you make spamd listen on port 783 - when I
telnet to that port it times out - I get no answer.
Michael Scheidell wrote:
And how did you do it?
Thunderbird plugin works, verified I can PING SPAMC/1.0 (pong) the
server.
Tcpdump on port 783 doesn't even show the outlook
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:24:37PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> might discover and publish and exploit for. Keeping allow_user_rules off
> protects you from future exploits in this area if you have untrusted users.
It's also worth noting that allow_user_rules makes spamd less efficient, at a
minim
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> kavaXtreme wrote:
>
>> I've read and read and read till my mind feels like spaghetti puree.
>> I'm really hoping someone here can help with my question.
>>
>> My main question is, why doesn't the following rule work:
>> header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ /(uucp|majordomo|ro
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 04:10:40PM -0500, Igor Chudov wrote:
>
>> Sep 12 16:07:47 manifold spamd[4270]: spamd: still running as root: user not
>> specified with -u, not found, or set to root, falling back to nobody at
>> /usr/bin/spamd line 1147, line 4.
>>
>> how wo
And how did you do it?
Thunderbird plugin works, verified I can PING SPAMC/1.0 (pong) the
server.
Tcpdump on port 783 doesn't even show the outlook plugin even attempting
to talk to server.
No error messages, no diagnostics messages, no indication that spam was
learnt/unlearnt, forgotten or igno
header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ /(uucp|majordomo|root)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
Bowie has answered your questions. A couple of comments on the regex above.
You should be using (?: instead of just ( to introduce the group. Without
the ?: it is a capturing group that will capture the text found.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 04:10:40PM -0500, Igor Chudov wrote:
> Sep 12 16:07:47 manifold spamd[4270]: spamd: still running as root: user not
> specified with -u, not found, or set to root, falling back to nobody at
> /usr/bin/spamd line 1147, line 4.
>
> how would I get rid of them.
Stop callin
I am running FC5, spamassassin 3.1.4 installed via cpan (ie not the
stock RPM).
I get these errors and I am a little tired of them.
Sep 12 16:07:47 manifold spamd[4270]: spamd: still running as root: user not
specified with -u, not found, or set to root, falling back to nobody at
/usr/bin/spam
Hi Mark,
At 07:59 12-09-2006, Mark Martinec wrote:
At the time of this writing it appears the dkim-milter is more reliable
and better maintained than dk-milter, which is slowly fading into
oblivion. Similar holds true in the world of Perl modules: there are
Both milters are being maintained and
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> kavaXtreme wrote:
> > I've read and read and read till my mind feels like spaghetti puree.
> > I'm really hoping someone here can help with my question.
> >
> > My main question is, why doesn't the following rule work:
> > header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~
> > /(uucp|majordo
kavaXtreme wrote:
> I've read and read and read till my mind feels like spaghetti puree.
> I'm really hoping someone here can help with my question.
>
> My main question is, why doesn't the following rule work:
> header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ /(uucp|majordomo|root)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
> score
I've read and read and read till my mind feels like spaghetti puree. I'm
really hoping someone here can help with my question.
My main question is, why doesn't the following rule work:
header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ /(uucp|majordomo|root)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
score ROMPE_BADRECIPS 4.5
de
Ok thanks John,
I might have resolved my problemI now see the Bayes_XX in the log file.
I did what you said which was to put an exclusive path to the database
folder on the C: drive.
Earlier I thought since I was logged on as administrator it was searching
for the database directly in the h
Good article -- and thanks for posting it!
For what it's worth, I think it's likely that DomainKeys will be around
for quite a while yet, with plenty of inertia regarding switching to DKIM;
but currently the text makes it sound like DK is already obsolete. It
might be worth de-emphasising that.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Floyd wrote:
> As I explained in my previous post that I am running as one user
> and one user only which is administrator
Windows system services may NOT be running as the Administrator user.
It's possible that the SA process is running as the SYSTEM user.
> the database is
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Facundo Barrera wrote:
> my maillog is fully with this error messages, i dont know how
> to solute it, could help? or at less tell why are them for?
> Sep 12 01:33:44 mail spamd[1259]: mkdir /home/spamd/.spamassassin:
> Permission denied at
It wants to write files in
I'm finishing up writing what I have learned in the last
couple of weeks on setting up a DKIM/DK signing/verifying
mail system using Postfix, milters, amavisd-new and
SpamAssassin. The following text will be part of the
documentation for amavisd-new (text is also available
at http://www.ijs.si/soft
As I explained in my previous post that I am running as one user and one user
only which is administrator on
this exchange box regardles of me using spamassassin -t and sa-learn and the
database is in the home folder of the administrator.
I have never used another login on this box ever before. I
Sorry I took so long to respond to this. Of course it was me who
should RTFM :-P Since we are using CGPSA we are not using SPAMD if I
understand it right. From the CGPSA website ( http://
www.tffenterprises.com/cgpsa/ ):
"The filter works efficiently, by directly using the SpamAssassin
API
hi list:
my maillog is fully with this error messages, i dont know how
to solute it, could help? or at less tell why are them for?
Sep 12 01:33:44 mail spamd[1259]: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp
lockfile /home/spamd/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.lock.mail.kmmnet.net.
1259 for /home/s
> -Original Message-
> From: John D. Hardin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:12 AM
> To: SpamAssassin Users List
> Subject: postcard exploit email
>
>
>
> Maybe we need a base rule for URL links directly to
> executable content...
>
> href="http://www
How does the mail from your ISP get back into your system? Does it go
through SA? If not, I would try to figure out how to make it do that.
If it is going through SA it isn't clear to me why it would have a lower
score than mail delivered directly to you. You might be able to do
something l
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 tagged_above=-999.0 required=2.0
tests=ALL_TRUSTED
If this wasn't sent FROM your server it indicates you have a problem in you
trust path setup. You should never see ALL_TRUSTED on mail (spam or
otherwise) coming in from some random system in the outside wo
points if the message arrives between, say, 1:00 and 6:00 (I should set
it from 21:00 to 8:00 since this is an office and I don't think someone is
going to send anything work-related at this time, but just to be
careful... ).
Do you know how can this be done? Do you think it could give too many
Heya guys! (and girls!)
Quick question about spamassassin's sa-learn
feature. I am running spamassassin on a semi-large webhosting server, and I
can't seem to find rather or not when I run sa-learn, if what it learns it will
apply to only that email address it was ran on, or the entire doma
thekillerbean schrieb:
Matthias Haegele-2 wrote:
Perhaps a better solution would be to use the same antispam-checks at
your second box/mx?.
I have only one e-mail server is my domain - it is only used by 3 people at
any one time. The secondary MX points to my ISP's email server and it
r
33 matches
Mail list logo
