John D. Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rizal Ferdiyan wrote:
I want to create "spamassassin learning
method", if my client find any spam for their email they can forward it
The act of forwarding completely changes the message.
Yes, i know that. Email will be add with "forward
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:36:56AM +, sushma wrote:
> Spam mail originated to list of user, if one user in whitelist_to
> then score will be neagtive so all other user also get that spam mail. how
> to aviod this.
If you scan your mails site-wide (ie: once per message), then you can't
hi,
Spam mail originated to list of user, if one user in whitelist_to
then score will be neagtive so all other user also get that spam mail. how
to aviod this.
Regards
sushma
Hi,
I got at test mailing spam report back with a score I had never seen before for
FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers
There wasn't a number in the email from or reply, so I just didn't get this.
Thanks
RC
_
| So, my question is: is it possible to set Sendmail / Spam Assassin in
| order filters just the receiving emails? If so, please, tell me what
| to do. But, please, tell me like a cooking recipe, because I am not
| quite experienced with operating systems. Thanks a lot.
|
| Mario./
Call SA fr
Good point, but will cause trouble UNLESS we find a way to recognize
ham 100%. And it must me exactly 100% (99% won't be enough).
As other users said, with current system, if we can filter 70-80 of the
spam, remaining 20-30% will only be an annoyance, but ham will be delivered.
But with the ne
This appears to be working
sub handle_potential_faraway
{
my $mail = shift(@_);
$spamtest->init(1);
my $msg = Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus->new($spamtest, $mail);
if ($msg->check_for_faraway_charset())
{
ignore_mail($mail);
} elsif ($msg->check_for_faraway_charset_in_headers
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 06:30:50PM -0600, Robert Nicholson wrote:
> I'd like to programatically call the methods SA uses to check for
> 8bit charsets and the like but I personally do not care to make use
> of the rules engine at all. Do I need an instance of PerMsgStatus
> fully setup before
Hello,
I'm using SA 3.1.7 with FuzzyOCR 3.5.1 . This month I started having
troubles with some GIF spams. The OCR can't recognize it and prints out
only some letters after doing the OCR. Have anybody seen it?
Max
[EMAIL PROTECTED] f]# spamassassin --debug FuzzyOcr < Přep\:\ Now\ this\ is\
clear
I am writting some rules with accents which is out of ASCII.
In my case it is ISO-8859-1 and I am sure it will match ISO-8859-1
equivalent messages.
However, how will it behave agains different charset (utf-8) in the
message body?
Does SA do anything regarding this issue like converting everyth
I'd like to programatically call the methods SA uses to check for
8bit charsets and the like but I personally do not care to make use
of the rules engine at all. Do I need an instance of PerMsgStatus
fully setup before I can call eval: methods programatically?
For instance I already have
m
urgrue wrote:
>
>> The auto-whitelist has nothing to do with anything that says
>> WHITELISTED.
>>
>> The auto-whitelist will show up as a rule named AWL. Nothing else.
>>
>> That said, can you be VERY specific about what your headers say?
>>
>> Does it say USER_IN_WHITELIST?
>>
>> If so, check yo
On Feb 10, 2007, at 14:38, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
How do you ever find FPs if you have so many TP to sort through
that it's not even worth sorting through FP+TP to find the FP ?
IMHO, that'd be why we assume that mails are ham rather than assume
that they are spam.
I haven't found FP rev
John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>> In particular, make sure you didn't do anything like the common
>> mistake of "whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]". Any spammer can
>> trivially forge a From: or Return-Path header, and forging your
>> own domain in these fiel
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 16:53 -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:09:35AM -0300, Raul Dias wrote:
> > This also implies that the sub-test values is always a RE and needs to
> > be proper delimeted.
>
> If you read "perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf", specifically the
> check_rb
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Dan wrote:
With Find the Ham, whitelisting is almost obsolete. When you find an FP,
How do you ever find FPs if you have so many TP to sort through that it's
not even worth sorting through FP+TP to find the FP ? IMHO, that'd be why
we assume that mails are ham rather th
Hi, Evan / Theo:
Well, until what I have understood, my Sendmail / Mailscanner are the
responsible to send to Spam Assassin the emails to be filterd, so, I
have to set Sendmail / Mailscanner in order they send to SA just
incoming emails, right?
Thanks a lot.
Mario./
At 18:47 10/2/2007, Ev
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:09:35AM -0300, Raul Dias wrote:
> This also implies that the sub-test values is always a RE and needs to
> be proper delimeted.
If you read "perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf", specifically the
check_rbl_sub() section, it'll explain what the subtests can be. It can
be se
> NEW SITUATION
> Ham is now the tiniest minority of all email.
>
> NEW ASSUMPTION
> All messages are spam unless x,y,z score says they're ham.
>
> NEW APPROACH
> Block everything, then create rules to not catch what you do want.
> ie, build tests that target the spam (keeping all the tests yo
At 02:42 PM 2/10/2007, correiob wrote:
Hi:
I have a Centos Linux, running Apache, Sendmail, Spam Assassin and
MailScanner. This Server is POP as well as SMTP for all the
mailboxes of my customers.
Actually, the SpamAssassin at this Server filters both, the emails
that are being received and
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 07:42:55PM -0300, correiob wrote:
> So, my question is: is it possible to set Sendmail / Spam Assassin in
> order filters just the receiving emails? If so, please, tell me what
> to do. But, please, tell me like a cooking recipe, because I am not
> quite experienced with
Hi:
I have a Centos Linux, running Apache, Sendmail, Spam Assassin and
MailScanner. This Server is POP as well as SMTP for all the mailboxes
of my customers.
Actually, the SpamAssassin at this Server filters both, the emails
that are being received and the emails that are being sent. This is
On Feb 10, 2007, at 12:14, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Dan wrote:
I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share
with everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate
as what I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
NEW ASSUMPTION
All messages are s
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:34:35PM +0200, urgrue wrote:
> It says, precisely:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=- tagged_above=-.0 required=5.0 WHITELISTED
>
> So if its not whitelist_from or the AWL, what can it be?
That's not an SA header, so I'm guessing you call SA from a third party
daemon. I'd
The auto-whitelist has nothing to do with anything that says WHITELISTED.
The auto-whitelist will show up as a rule named AWL. Nothing else.
That said, can you be VERY specific about what your headers say?
Does it say USER_IN_WHITELIST?
If so, check your whitelist_from and whitelist_from_rc
Is that the same as whitelisting, maybe I do not understand, but a very
rigorous approach would
be a whitelist methodology which, once a new account is created, they
send email to everyone they
want to communicate with, and it 'autowhitelists' those addresses, so
you can only receive from those
Clarifications:
1) I'm not talking about generating new rules. Rules stay the same.
I'm describing a new scoring process only.
2) This would not be a replacement to SA, but an improvement. Just a
new way to process results already generated by SA. Ideally, this
would be a replacement
From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Dan wrote:
> > I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
> > everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
> > I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
> >
> > NEW ASSUMPTION
>
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:14:56 -0500, Miles Fidelman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>> I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
>> everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
>> I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
This would be easier to filter.
It would also be more adaptive to a statistical approach than a regex
approach.
Personally, I think HTML email should be outright discarded from the
start.
If you look at this arguement presented by the OP then it reinforces
the idea that most ascii is ham a
One consideration is that spam getting through is never more than an
annoyance. Ham getting caught can be a big problem. So any kind of "deny
by default" system has to deal with how to respond to people sending you
mail that gets trapped and provide a way for the sender to "get
approval". How
From: Tom Allison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> CHALLENGE
> >> All filtering software is written to score for results that equal
> >> spam -> catch the bad
> >>
> >> SOLUTION
> >> Make filtering software score for results that equal ham -> uncatch
> >> the good.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your thoughts
From: Tom Allison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> CHALLENGE
> >> All filtering software is written to score for results that equal
> >> spam -> catch the bad
> >>
> >> SOLUTION
> >> Make filtering software score for results that equal ham -> uncatch
> >> the good.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your thoughts
Dan wrote:
I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
NEW ASSUMPTION
All messages are spam unless x,y,z score says they're ham.
NEW APPROA
CHALLENGE
All filtering software is written to score for results that equal
spam -> catch the bad
SOLUTION
Make filtering software score for results that equal ham -> uncatch
the good.
Your thoughts?
How can this method "spend less time and energy"? Aren't you going to build a
"mirro
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:17 +0100, "Giampaolo Tomassoni"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
>> everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
>> I've already built,
From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
> everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
> I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
>
>
>
> SITUATION
> In the beginning, all email w
I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
SITUATION
In the beginning, all email was ham. When spam came along, we left
the ham alone
Mário Gamito wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just installed spamassassin.
>
> I'ts been a long time since i've installed the last mail server and i
> never used version 3.
>
> Ok, i've compiled it and copied spamd to /etc/init.d
Don't do that. spamd isn't an init script. It's a binary executable. It
belongs
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Matt Kettler wrote:
> In particular, make sure you didn't do anything like the common
> mistake of "whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]". Any spammer can
> trivially forge a From: or Return-Path header, and forging your
> own domain in these fields is a common tactic because spam
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:12:24 +, Mário Gamito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have spamassassin already 100% installed in a Linux server.
>I just want to know how to run it as user qscand without having to type
>"./spamd -u qscand start &", so i can start it at boot time.
>
>Regards,
>Már
Hi,
I have spamassassin already 100% installed in a Linux server.
I just want to know how to run it as user qscand without having to type
"./spamd -u qscand start &", so i can start it at boot time.
Regards,
Mário Gamito
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:44:16 +, Mário Gamito
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:44:16 +, Mário Gamito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've just installed spamassassin.
>
>I'ts been a long time since i've installed the last mail server and i
>never used version 3.
>
>Ok, i've compiled it and copied spamd to /etc/init.d
>
>If i just run "./spamd s
Hi,
I've just installed spamassassin.
I'ts been a long time since i've installed the last mail server and i
never used version 3.
Ok, i've compiled it and copied spamd to /etc/init.d
If i just run "./spamd start", it will run as root and stucks the terminal.
So, i'm running "./spamd -u qsca
urgrue wrote:
> I'm having a whitelist-related problem.
> -a lot of spam comes through with WHITELISTED in the headers, yet i
> can never find the senders, IPs, etc of said messages in any
> whitelists, including the auto-whitelist.
> -auto-whitelist is in use although I've disabled it everywhere.
yes. the that error message is slightly different but in any case I do not
understand what 'define PYTHONPATH to point at ($HOME/lib/python)' means
(what/where/how).
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Kasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Webmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, Feb
At 06:04 AM Saturday, 2/10/2007, you wrote -=>
pyzor stopped working on my fedora core 5 system. I get the following error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/pyzor", line 3, in ?
import pyzor.client
ImportError: No module named pyzor.client
The contents of /usr/bin/pyzor are
pyzor stopped working on my fedora core 5 system.
I get the following error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/pyzor", line 3, in ?
import pyzor.client
ImportError: No module named pyzor.client
The contents of /usr/bin/pyzor are:
#!/usr/bin/python
import pyzor.client
pyzor
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 00:00 -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> O
> > If the last one is true, is the ^ $ really necessary?
> [...]
> > If it really is a RE, what preventes '127.0.0.1' to not match
> > 127.0.0.10? Or 127.1.0.1 to not match 127.120.1.1 ?
>
> You answered your own question. :)
Ok, thi
I'm having a whitelist-related problem.
-a lot of spam comes through with WHITELISTED in the headers, yet i can
never find the senders, IPs, etc of said messages in any whitelists,
including the auto-whitelist.
-auto-whitelist is in use although I've disabled it everywhere.
I'm running spamass
For a particular user, I'm finding no correlation between his whitelist_from's
in user_prefs and the whitelist status as reported in incoming messages.
I see messages with no USER_IN_WHITELIST when both the From and From: addresses
match a whitelist_from line in the user_prefs file. I also see mes
51 matches
Mail list logo
