Hi
Does noone know if it is possible to add the recipient to a custom header?
Regards
Sebastian Ries
--
DT Netsolution GmbH - Talaeckerstr. 30 - D-70437 Stuttgart
Tel: +49-711-849910-36 Fax: +49-711-849910-936
WEB: htt
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taking a look at that and offering my opinions:
Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it. Apart from inline
images though, the other points either don't apply to our emails, or
don't appear to be contributing to the Spam
I guess i don't understand, you say that "Rewriting the subject is ultimately
the responsibility of the MTA.", but SA has this option, so that means that it
is SA's responsibility...right?
***
Tony Guadagno
Guadagno Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
585.703
Kelson wrote:
> Dhaval Patel wrote:
>> 1.2 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
>> [score: 0.4999]
>
> Possibly silly and slightly off-topic question, but why are you giving
> BAYES_50 a positive score? BAYES_50 means Bayes gives it a 50/
> -Original Message-
> From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:46 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Salesforce web bug
>
>
> > Why do you want to consider this a spam sign? I'm just curious.
>
> Bugs in mail messages are
On 12/20/06, Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you want to consider this a spam sign? I'm just curious.
Bugs in mail messages are generally a suspicious circumstance, and probably
good for a fractional point all by themselves. In general any tracking that
will auto-identify with
Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking a look at that and offering my opinions:
Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it. Apart from inline
images though, the other points either don't apply to our emails, or
don't appear to be contributing to the SpamAssassin score.
> In all hon
Why do you want to consider this a spam sign? I'm just curious.
Bugs in mail messages are generally a suspicious circumstance, and probably
good for a fractional point all by themselves. In general any tracking that
will auto-identify without the user at least clicking on something is
suspi
On 12/19/06, Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I noticed an email from salesforce has a 'user tracking' web bug in it
but it isn't currently detected by SA or SARES
Why do you want to consider this a spam sign? I'm just curious.
>
> No.
>
> But it does work better if you install all needed dependencies and
> follow the instructions. Without dependencies it doesn't run (who
> would have guessed?), and without following the instructions the
> result may not be what you expected.
>
> -thh
Thanks, the context of my questi
"R Lists06" schrieb:
> Is sa-update broken
No.
But it does work better if you install all needed dependencies and
follow the instructions. Without dependencies it doesn't run (who
would have guessed?), and without following the instructions the
result may not be what you expected.
-thh
From: "Rob Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jon Ribbens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/20/06 03:16PM >>>
Adam Lanier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's why I asked to see a sample message. We could probably give some
pointers on what is triggering SA.
Set your TRUSTED_NETWORKS and that'll help. That's
I have attached a sample message to this email. Note, it's just an
example. This message does not trigger at the 5.0 level, but I know
messages like this are being blocked by some of our customers. It does
get a higher score than I would like it to (i.e. 0.0 ;-) ), and
certainly the rules its trig
Noah wrote:
> SA 3.1.7
> FreeBSD 4.11
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am trying to get better understanding as to why spamassassin is
> behaving the way it is.
>
> So I see that autolearn=no. I thought by default autolearn is turned
> on. I dont have this turned off in the system-wide configuration nor
>
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 04:32:41PM -0500, Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> I'm noticing a lot of entries in my maillog regarding a non-existent
> directory
It means that some user calling spamd has a homedir set to /nonexistant.
> I do not have per-user config- and spamd runs as root-
So you're running
Hi everyone ,
I'm noticing a lot of entries in my maillog regarding a non-existent
directory
-
Google came up with this-
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general/72541
I'm not entirely sure I'm grasping what to do here-
I do not have per-user config- and spamd runs as root-
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:21:59PM +0200, Halid Faith wrote:
> I use spamassassin3.1.7. It uses tmp directory of root. Fuzzyocr uses it too.
> I want them to use different a place from /tmp dir.
> How can I do that ?
Short version:
Like most other UNIX programs, set TMPDIR before running SA.
Lon
I use spamassassin3.1.7. It uses tmp directory of root. Fuzzyocr uses it too.
I want them to use different a place from /tmp dir.
How can I do that ?
>>> Jon Ribbens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/20/06 03:16PM >>>
Adam Lanier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why I asked to see a sample message. We could probably give some
> pointers on what is triggering SA.
I have attached a sample message to this email. Note, it's just an
example. This message d
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 08:42:01PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> I know that I can trick spamd & spamassassin into using whatever
> directory I like for whatever rule files, but wouldn't it make sense to
> make this configurable through the command line (or some system-wide
> setting) in spamd + s
SA 3.1.7
FreeBSD 4.11
Hi there,
I am trying to get better understanding as to why spamassassin is
behaving the way it is.
So I see that autolearn=no. I thought by default autolearn is turned
on. I dont have this turned off in the system-wide configuration nor
the user specific configurati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can specify "sa-update --updatedir path" to use something other than
the default (eg /var/lib/spamassassin/). However, I can not do
the same for spamd(8) and spamassassin(1) -- they have LOCAL_STATE_DIR
substituted at make time.
I know that I can tr
Dhaval Patel wrote:
1.2 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.4999]
Possibly silly and slightly off-topic question, but why are you giving
BAYES_50 a positive score? BAYES_50 means Bayes gives it a 50/50 chance
of being eit
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 06:44:48PM +, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> I did that. The problem that needs fixing is SpamAssassin. It is
> triggering on things that are nothing to do with spam (for example,
> RFC-compliant use of multipart/related).
Your main issue is that spammers are making their mails
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why not find which rules are triggered by your message
I already did - see my original post at the start of this thread.
> Can't be too hard, spammers do it all the time.
That's my point - why should I have to behave like a spammer in order
to avoid get
>wrong list.. perhaps you meant to post it to the exim list?
OOPS, sorry about thathit the wrong address book entry.
Thanks for pointing it out.
George
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 11:38 -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 12/20/06, Jon Ribbens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ...sign up with a service like Habeas or Bonded Sender and put their
> > > headers in your messages?
> >
> > I suppose we could do. Does a
On 12/20/06, Jon Ribbens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...sign up with a service like Habeas or Bonded Sender and put their
> headers in your messages?
I suppose we could do. Does anyone know how much that costs?
It still seems wrong to me though that
George R. Kasica wrote:
Trying to compile 4.64 here using the same settings as 4.63 (which
compiles just fine) and am seeing the following error during make:
gcc transport.c
In file included from transport.c:17:
/usr/local/include/sys/sendfile.h:26:3: error: #error
" cannot be used with _FILE_OF
Trying to compile 4.64 here using the same settings as 4.63 (which
compiles just fine) and am seeing the following error during make:
gcc transport.c
In file included from transport.c:17:
/usr/local/include/sys/sendfile.h:26:3: error: #error
" cannot be used with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64"
make[1]: ***
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...sign up with a service like Habeas or Bonded Sender and put their
> headers in your messages?
I suppose we could do. Does anyone know how much that costs?
It still seems wrong to me though that SpamAssassin is penalising mail
that doesn't look like
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 11:02 -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:00:17AM -0500, Kyle Quillen wrote:
> > Ok when I type spamassassin -D it stops at
> >
> > [2] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
> > [2] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.48
> >
> > and then jus
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> 6) a small score (0.5?) if the sender address contains "web" or "www".
I'd add the same check against the Received: headers.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:35:08PM +0100, Martin wrote:
> Matt, thanks, but i don't want to disable all of them. Is it possible to
> disable just some of them. Since Spamhaus has changed from SBL+XBL to
> ZEN, i want to change that too.
You can override this stuff in local.cf, but for things lik
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:00:17AM -0500, Kyle Quillen wrote:
> Ok when I type spamassassin -D it stops at
>
> [2] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
> [2] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.48
>
> and then just sits there waiting for something. I read somewhere that
> it wanted t
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:49 +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Kyle Quillen wrote:
>
> > I have a few issues with our filtering and am not sure how to make
> > things better. The main issue that I have is that I have created a
> > whitelis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kyle Quillen wrote:
> I have a few issues with our filtering and am not sure how to make
> things better. The main issue that I have is that I have created a
> whitelist.cf file in /etc/mail/spamassassin but with the following
> [..]
>
> I am not
Kyle Quillen wrote:
> they are still getting tagged as spam.
>
> ...
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.8 required=2.0
Of course they're still getting tagged as spam. A score of 2.0 is way,
Way, WAY too low a score to be reasonable. At my site it's set to 3.5,
and it's still very aggressive, requiri
Hello All,
I have a few issues with our filtering and am not sure how to make
things better. The main issue that I have is that I have created a
whitelist.cf file in /etc/mail/spamassassin but with the following
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] adelphia.net
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTE
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, John Rudd wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/stupid_spammer_tricks_01.txt
I'm seeing a few of these today too. In fact, at home, I've had
maybe 5 spam messages slip through my defenses today. That's a
HUGE increase for me .
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/stupid_spammer_tricks_01.txt
>
> I'm seeing a few of these today too. In fact, at home, I've had
> maybe 5 spam messages slip through my defenses today. That's a
> HUGE increase for me ... I usually
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:09 -, "Dhaval Patel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello all, I have been using spamassassin for quite some time and just
>recently I have
>seen some false positives. Looking at the content analysis I see that it is the
>URIBL*SURBL rules that is throwing it over the e
Hello all, I have been using spamassassin for quite some time and just recently
I have
seen some false positives. Looking at the content analysis I see that it is the
URIBL*SURBL rules that is throwing it over the edge. What is surprising is that
in some
of the emails, the URI is not even in the
--On 19 December 2006 18:01:31 +0100 Emmanuel Lesouef
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was using it but with postfix checking sender restrictions.
I think it is not used in SA but by mail servers.
Anyone got a replacement ?
We've been using this list of RBLs:
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
list
Matt Kettler wrote:
If you want to turn them off, you need to add this to your local.cf:
skip_rbl_checks 1
Matt, thanks, but i don't want to disable all of them. Is it possible to
disable just some of them. Since Spamhaus has changed from SBL+XBL to
ZEN, i want to change that too.
Thank y
Duncan Hill wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 06:50, John Rudd wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/stupid_spammer_tricks_01.txt
I'm seeing a few of these today too. In fact, at home, I've had maybe 5
spam messages slip through my defenses today. That's a HUGE incre
Martin wrote:
>
>
> Where do i deactivate some of these rbls? I can't remember that i've
> enabled any of them.
RBLs are on by default, provided that the Net::DNS perl package is present.
If you want to turn them off, you need to add this to your local.cf:
skip_rbl_checks 1
Kosmaj wrote:
> Forgive me for spamming the list, but I just realized
> that if I just score -10 to long messages, SP will keep on
> applying other rules, and it will take long time again.
> Therefore, what I need is a rule which will score -10 points
> and tell SP to stop processing of all other r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran spamassassin in debug-mode and noticed the following output:
>
> [23887] dbg: plugin:
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9a4a910) implements
> 'parsed_metadata'
> [23887] dbg: uridnsbl: domains to query:
> [
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 06:11, Kosmaj wrote:
> Forgive me for spamming the list, but I just realized
> that if I just score -10 to long messages, SP will keep on
> applying other rules, and it will take long time again.
> Therefore, what I need is a rule which will score -10 points
> and tell
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 06:50, John Rudd wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/stupid_spammer_tricks_01.txt
>
> I'm seeing a few of these today too. In fact, at home, I've had maybe 5
> spam messages slip through my defenses today. That's a HUGE increase
> for me
Hi,
I ran spamassassin in debug-mode and noticed the following output:
[23887] dbg: plugin:
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9a4a910) implements
'parsed_metadata'
[23887] dbg: uridnsbl: domains to query:
[23887] dbg: dns: checking RBL sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org., set sblxbl
[23887] dbg:
52 matches
Mail list logo
