On Monday, October 2, 2006, 5:39:02 AM, Fabien GARZIANO wrote:
> I'm getting strange result with my URIBL_* rules. I get some messages
> where theses rules score but I dont get no listing when I manually check
> with tools like http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi
> For example, I got a
On Mon, October 2, 2006 18:57, Robert Swan wrote:
> I have a legitimate client that I receive e-mail from and they are
> listed by Razor (sourceforge.net), among other things. Does any know how
> to get someone off of Razor's list? Any help would be appreciated.
http://razor.sourceforge.net/docs/
Keith S. Wiedemann wrote:
> I am a new user to both pfSense and to SpamAssassin, but no stranger
> to networking, etc.
>
> I am running an SMTP server behind a non-standard port, and just
> switched to using pfSense for my firewall. It works fine with NAT
> forwarding.
>
> pfSense supports Spa
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 23:31:57 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
>
>On Fri, September 29, 2006 19:59, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
>>> It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is
>>> either using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you.
>>
>> Comcast themselves are using a
On Tue, October 3, 2006 00:01, Gary V wrote:
>> For installing the ImageInfo plugin where do you put the ImageInfo.pm
>> without defining a path? Im running CentOS4.4 & Fedora Core 5 as test
>> machines.
> This should find your Plugin directory (which is where you place it):
> find /usr -type d -
For installing the ImageInfo plugin where do you put the ImageInfo.pm
without defining a path? Im running CentOS4.4 & Fedora Core 5 as test
machines.
Thanks!
Wilson
This should find your Plugin directory (which is where you place it):
find /usr -type d -name Plugin
Gary V
On Fri, September 29, 2006 19:59, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
>> It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is
>> either using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you.
>
> Comcast themselves are using a spam filter?
> (Let me taste that line one more time...)
> C
> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:58 AM
> To: Dylan Bouterse; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Stock spam in images
>
> This has been covered so many times on this list.
>
> 1: if you're not on spamassassin
I am a new user to
both pfSense and to SpamAssassin, but no stranger to networking,
etc.
I am running an
SMTP server behind a non-standard port, and just switched to using pfSense for
my firewall. It works fine with NAT forwarding.
pfSense supports
SpamAssassin as a plugin, but after i
Hello,
since the owner of that list does not reply to any mails looking for
help ( I have been registred here for several years under
Volker/[EMAIL PROTECTED], but my postings do not appear here anymore) I
had to set up a new account.
Following problem:
I am running SpamAssassin-3.1.5 under
On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Ken A wrote:
The web page says that it's a policy, not an error. Perhaps the
rule misfired and they backed it out, but it looks like they have
every intention of blocking URLs in email that consist of IPs
rather than hostnames.
They most certainly do and have
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 12:52 -0700, Ken A wrote:
>
> The web page says that it's a policy, not an error. Perhaps the rule
> misfired and they backed it out, but it looks like they have every
> intention of blocking URLs in email that consist of IPs rather than
> hostnames.
Perhaps we're speakin
Adam Lanier wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 12:36 -0700, Ken A wrote:
Anyone else seen this one?
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvuip.html
Seems rather harsh, but probably quite effective.
As reported on the SPAM-L mailing list, this was an error on AOL's part.
According to AOL, they'
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 12:36 -0700, Ken A wrote:
> Anyone else seen this one?
> http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvuip.html
> Seems rather harsh, but probably quite effective.
As reported on the SPAM-L mailing list, this was an error on AOL's part.
According to AOL, they've removed the rule
Anyone else seen this one?
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvuip.html
Seems rather harsh, but probably quite effective.
Ken A.
Pacific.Net
All I can do is repeat what the Razor FAQ says. Razor doesn't list
senders, it only lists signatures of message content.
I'm not sure how Razor handles attachments, but it is not particularly
surprising that a blank message would be listed as spam. Tell the
client to at least include his name or
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:05:38AM -0500, Stuart Johnston wrote:
> Would it also be possible to create a rule that matches on text rendered
> specifically from a non-text part and not the whole body? That way you
You'd have to do that in a plugin, but otherwise, sure. There's currently no
meth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Randal, Phil wrote:
> This has been covered so many times on this list.
>
> 1: if you're not on spamassassin 3.1.5 get it now, and run
> sa-update (via a cron job daily, but test first with a manual
> sa-update -D)
>
> 2: pop over to http://www.rules
Robert Swan wrote:
These guys are having lots of trouble sending email to people, they are
using an exchange 2003 server and are not listed on any SPAM database
anywhere, per.. http://www.dnsstuff.com/
Robert
They may be using an Exchange Server for actually forwarding emails out,
but it loo
You can also do a "razor-revoke" on the message. It doesn't necessarily lower
the cf rating, but it's a vote none-the-less. :)
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:22:27PM +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
> You could try telling the spammer (sorry, sender), to fix their spamming
> (sorry, emailing) software.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:58PM +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
>>> undetected). Wouldn't it be better to inject the detected
>>> text back to SA? There should be enough variants of spam
>>> worlds to let SA fuzzily catch the one
> > ...omissis...
> >
> > How about the FuzzyOCR plugin? That has been discussed quite a bit
> > here recently.
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FuzzyOcrPlugin
> >
> > --
> > Bowie
>
> And, by the way, it seems to work!
>
> Actually, the only limit I see is the own-made FuzzyOcr.words
>
These guys are having lots of trouble sending email to people, they are
using an exchange 2003 server and are not listed on any SPAM database
anywhere, per.. http://www.dnsstuff.com/
Robert
Peace he would say instead of goodbyepeace my brother.
-Original Message-
From: Bow
Robert Swan wrote:
> I have a legitimate client that I receive e-mail from and they are
listed
> by Razor (sourceforge.net), among other things. Does any know how to
get
> someone off of Razor's list? Any help would be appreciated.
As has been pointed out, Razor does not have a "list" that they pu
Robert Swan wrote:
I have a legitimate client that I receive e-mail from and they are
listed by Razor (sourceforge.net), among other things. Does any know how
to get someone off of Razor’s list? Any help would be appreciated.
Razor doesn't list senders. It analyzes the message body, generates
You could try telling the spammer (sorry, sender), to
fix their spamming (sorry, emailing) software.
Phil
--Phil RandalNetwork
EngineerHerefordshire CouncilHereford, UK
From: Robert Swan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 October 2006 17:57To: SpamAssassin
UsersSubject: Raz
Robert Swan wrote:
> I have a legitimate client that I receive e-mail from and they are
> listed by Razor (sourceforge.net), among other things. Does any know
> how to get someone off of Razor's list? Any help would be
> appreciated.
>From the Razor2 FAQ:
Q: Razor has blacklisted my email addr
I have a legitimate client that I receive e-mail from and
they are listed by Razor (sourceforge.net), among other things. Does any know
how to get someone off of Razor’s list? Any help would be appreciated.
Content analysis
details: (11.3 points, 4.9 required)
pts rule
name
> You'd need some clever rules...
>
> As an example, the word "stock" is perfectly valid in emails, but if you
> found it in an attached image you'd be pretty sure it was spam.
It would be perfectly valid in a, say, graph image too. SA is meant to work in
the overall message content. It is not t
The real problem is the potentially fuzzy output from the ocr engine: shure all
the copies of the very same spam would be detected the same, but what about
slightly different copies? Would the "use the sa force" approach be feasible?
The use of String::Approx in fuzzyocr has shurely a meaning, b
Newbie is a derogatory term and to call yourself a newbie is like calling
yourself a moron(no offense).
>From Wiki:
A newbie is a newcomer to a particular field, the term being commonly used
on the Internet, where it might refer to new, inexperienced, or ignorant
users of a game, a newsgroup, an o
You'd need some clever rules...
As an example, the word "stock" is perfectly valid in emails, but if you
found it in an attached image you'd be pretty sure it was spam.
So you'd need two sets of rules anyhow.
It looks like SA 3.2 will let us do that in a sane manner.
Phil
--
Phil Randal
Network
Stuart Johnston wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:58PM +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
undetected). Wouldn't it be better to inject the detected text back
to SA? There should be enough variants of spam worlds to let SA
fuzzily catch the ones from images.
I think so.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:58PM +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
undetected). Wouldn't it be better to inject the detected
text back to SA? There should be enough variants of spam
worlds to let SA fuzzily catch the ones from images.
I think so. Some of the words would be p
The reason I brought this up was because I've added timings to show how long my
filtering script takes to run and in come cases when the mail is spam it's 6-10
seconds or longer. Is that normal?
Quoting Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Robert Nicholson writes:
> >I've got plugins that are r
Too bad, cause I agree with Giampaolo, it would be great. What about making a
plugin including OCR components but instead of using inner dictionnary, passing
it back to spamassassin through the MTA... Yeah, I know, the load will increase
... But that would be nice ?
...
... Ok,I go back to s
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:58PM +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
> > > undetected). Wouldn't it be better to inject the detected
> > > text back to SA? There should be enough variants of spam
> > > worlds to let SA fuzzily catch the ones from images.
> >
> > I think so. Some of the words would b
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:58PM +0100, Randal, Phil wrote:
> > undetected). Wouldn't it be better to inject the detected
> > text back to SA? There should be enough variants of spam
> > worlds to let SA fuzzily catch the ones from images.
>
> I think so. Some of the words would be perfectly
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> And, by the way, it seems to work!
>
> Actually, the only limit I see is the own-made FuzzyOcr.words
> (and, maybe, the fact that script text may probably get
> undetected). Wouldn't it be better to inject the detected
> text back to SA? There should be enough vari
This has been covered so many times on this list.
1: if you're not on spamassassin 3.1.5 get it now, and run sa-update
(via a cron job daily, but test first with a manual sa-update -D)
2: pop over to http://www.rulesemporium.com and get an appropriate
selection of their rules, and configure Rul
Fabien GARZIANO wrote:
> I've tried each but I got 'not listed in multi.surbl.org and
> multi.surbl.com.
> Here's the score and detail from spamassassin :
> X-caliseo-MailScanner-SpamCheck: polluriel, SpamAssassin
> (score=6.133,
> requis 5.8, BAYES_00 -2.60, NO_REAL_NAME 0.01, URIBL_JP
>
> ...omissis...
>
> How about the FuzzyOCR plugin? That has been discussed quite a bit
> here recently.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FuzzyOcrPlugin
>
> --
> Bowie
And, by the way, it seems to work!
Actually, the only limit I see is the own-made FuzzyOcr.words (and, maybe, the
fa
-Original Message-
From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:46 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Stock spam in images
Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> I'm a newbie to the list and have been scanning recent posts to see if
> what I'm about to ask
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 23:28:29 -0700 (PDT), List Mail User
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:16:00 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Mon, October 2, 2006 00:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I will be out of the office starting 29/09/2006 and will not
> >> return until 08/10/2006
Robert Nicholson writes:
>I've got plugins that are running and if they are positive I really
>don't need to run any more plugins.
>
>Q. Do all plugins run against a message or can you configure things
>so that one plugin aborts the running of others?
>
>in my init.pre I have
>
># URIDNSBL - l
> I'm a newbie to the list and have been scanning recent posts to see if
> what I'm about to ask about has been covered but I haven't seen anything
> yet.
>
> Lately I have been getting more and more of the stock alert spam but now
> all the good info is in an image and typically following the ima
Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> I'm a newbie to the list and have been scanning recent posts to see if
> what I'm about to ask about has been covered but I haven't seen
> anything yet.
>
> Lately I have been getting more and more of the stock alert spam but
> now all the good info is in an image and typic
Have been answered few threads ago and more... May be you didn't scan enough ^^
You can use FuzzyOCR module (But dont ask me how to use, I've never tried ^^)
-Message d'origine-
De : Dylan Bouterse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2006 15:38
À : users@spamassassin.apa
I'm a newbie to the list and have been scanning recent posts to see if
what I'm about to ask about has been covered but I haven't seen anything
yet.
Lately I have been getting more and more of the stock alert spam but now
all the good info is in an image and typically following the image is
random
I've got plugins that are running and if they are positive I really
don't need to run any more plugins.
Q. Do all plugins run against a message or can you configure things
so that one plugin aborts the running of others?
in my init.pre I have
# URIDNSBL - look up URLs found in the message
Hi folks,
I'm getting strange result with my URIBL_* rules. I get some messages
where theses rules score but I dont get no listing when I manually check
with tools like http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi
For example, I got a mail from one of our providers : westcon.fr (or
weston.com)
David Ulevitch writes:
>On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:30 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> David Ulevitch writes:
>>>
>>> Donald,
>>>
>>> We handle DNSBLs but not URIBLs, at the moment. Passing along to
>>> Noah to see what he can do. Sorry you had this happen to your
>>> SpamAssassin scoring. (Time to check
> Giampaolo Tomassoni schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > is there any plan or idea in trapping this too? Or even just
> trying to better identify it?
>
> look for fuzzyocr, use the sare-rules from http://www.rulesemporium.com/
> search the archives this has been discussed here recently ...
Nah! Already d
Giampaolo Tomassoni schrieb:
Hi,
is there any plan or idea in trapping this too? Or even just trying to better
identify it?
look for fuzzyocr, use the sare-rules from http://www.rulesemporium.com/
search the archives this has been discussed here recently ...
Regards,
--
Hi,
is there any plan or idea in trapping this too? Or even just trying to better
identify it?
Regards,
---
Giampaolo Tomassoni - IT Consultant
Piazza VIII Aprile 1948, 4
I-53044 Chiusi (SI) - Italy
Ph: +39-0578-21100
On 10/2/06, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 01 October 2006 06:39, Mike Kenny wrote:
> Success in the sense that
> spam is no longer entering our system. However it is still being
> passed through.
Well stop being an open relay and problem solved.
I would have thought THAT w
56 matches
Mail list logo
