I am running
Spamassasin 3.1.8
Spamass-milter 0.3.1
Sendmail 8.13.5
on NetBSD
The load is constant 170 messages per hour
Spamass-milter crashes about once a week.
Here is the backtrace from spamass-milter.core (72MB)
Any idea's
Loaded symbols for /usr/libexec/ld.elf_so
#0 0xbda5e0fb in kill
Bill McCormick wrote:
Bill McCormick wrote:
Bill McCormick wrote:
I switched from using a RulesDeJour update script to sa-update. I'm no
longer getting hits on these geocites spams. Anybody know which sare
rule I need to add?
I found and load the WebRedirect Plugin:
http://wiki.apache.org/
Bill McCormick wrote:
Bill McCormick wrote:
I switched from using a RulesDeJour update script to sa-update. I'm no
longer getting hits on these geocites spams. Anybody know which sare
rule I need to add?
I found and load the WebRedirect Plugin:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WebRedirect
Bill McCormick wrote:
I switched from using a RulesDeJour update script to sa-update. I'm no
longer getting hits on these geocites spams. Anybody know which sare
rule I need to add?
I found and load the WebRedirect Plugin:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WebRedirectPlugin
Can anybody tel
I've searched for the answer to this and haven't seen it come up yet.
I'm trying to get a better grip on my sa install. I'm running spamd and
spamc through qmail-scanner. I can't figure out which configuration
files are in effect for my set up. I'm getting different results when I
run spamassassin
Henrik Krohns wrote:
>>> I would *not* try to upgrade Perl. In doing so, you could cause you
>>> machine to laps in an error-log extravaganza.
>> Ya, that was my last resort, but I'd rather avoid it if I could. I'll
>> post back with my results if I do see an improvement.
>
> Why should you upgr
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As per the title, I'm seeing a pretty big rise this last week. So far
> this week has seen the most spam I've ever had to deal with in over 10
> years.
>
> RBLs and SA are catching more, as is greylisting. That said, yesterday
> saw double my 'usual' amount of
On Saturday 24 March 2007 23:04, Marc Perkel wrote:
> The learn-spam script looks like this:
>
> /usr/bin/spamc -d euclid.ctyme.com -x -t 15 -L spam > /dev/null 2> /dev/null
> /bin/echo "" > /dev/null
>
> The echo command is just there so it returns a "0" and exim doesn't
> complain. Probably a b
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As per the title, I'm seeing a pretty big rise this last week. So far
> this week has seen the most spam I've ever had to deal with in over 10
> years.
>
> RBLs and SA are catching more, as is greylisting. That said, yesterday
> saw double my 'usual' amount of
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, maillist wrote:
The only tests that they score for me are BAYES_99, which should be enough to
get them sent to my spam-drop, but they get to the users instead. When I
--lint -D I don't see anything that tells me that I have a config problem.
I start spamd this way, as
I switched from using a RulesDeJour update script to sa-update. I'm no
longer getting hits on these geocites spams. Anybody know which sare
rule I need to add?
Thanks,
Bill McCormick
--
ACE-CO
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.448 / Virus Database: 268.1
Got no advice on this so reposting:
Now getting loads of FuzzyOcr failed to execute pamditherbw.
I have ppmtopgm but no pamtopnm and no pamthreshold.
I have netpbm 2.10.0-11 from Debian Sid. So I commented out the missing stuff
in FuzzyOcr.scansets, but in FuzzyOcr.preps, this was an either or
1st:
Inhaltsanalyse im Detail: (11.2 Punkte, 5.0 benötigt)
Pkte Regelname Beschreibung
-- --
0.7 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DBHost is d-d-d-d
0.7 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HEL
fighting with the same stuff since two days...
i added into my local.cf:
bodyOVE_BODY_OUR_LAST_PICK_DOUBLED /\bOur.Last.pick.Doubled\b/i
score OVE_BODY_OUR_LAST_PICK_DOUBLED 10
because they also got no big score by default...
Ove Starckjohann
> -Ursprüngliche Nachri
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Oggetto: Re: R: R: New method of spamming
>
> Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> >> -Messaggio originale-
> >> Da: Chris St. Pierre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> >>
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Inviato: lunedì 26 marzo 2007 16.48
> A: Giampaolo Tomassoni
> Cc: 'Chris St. Pierre'; 'Larry Ludwig'; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Oggetto: Re: R: R: New method of spamming
>
>
> Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
>
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Messaggio originale-
Da: Chris St. Pierre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
By "black-listing" URI's host IPs, one could easily score high this
kind of
e-mails. Maybe there is also some RBL regarding web hosts, by th
The only tests that they score for me are BAYES_99, which should be
enough to get them sent to my spam-drop, but they get to the users
instead. When I --lint -D I don't see anything that tells me that I
have a config problem.
I start spamd this way, as root...
/usr/bin/spamd -r /var/run/sp
> Da: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I think that a SA plugin which resolves URIs would be enough:
> > I received
> > some of these spams, everyone containing a URI pointing to
> > the very same web
> No direct plugin, but URIBL will catch most of these fairly quickly.
> Its
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
> > -Messaggio originale-
> > Da: Chris St. Pierre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> >
> > > By "black-listing" URI's host IPs, one could easily score high this
> > kind of
> > > e-mails. Maybe there is also so
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: Chris St. Pierre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>
> > By "black-listing" URI's host IPs, one could easily score high this
> kind of
> > e-mails. Maybe there is also some RBL regarding web hosts, by the
> way. Is
Ok so I'm confused on how to SA could catch this..
URIBL OR Razor isn't catching these because of how quickly they are going
out (sure a few days/hours later running SA against the email it will catch
it) but that isn't the point.
My question is how can SA check the previous mail relay from spe
>
> I think that a SA plugin which resolves URIs would be enough:
> I received
> some of these spams, everyone containing a URI pointing to
> the very same web
No direct plugin, but URIBL will catch most of these fairly quickly. Its not
a new tactic, but has recently picked up on the spam runs
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
By "black-listing" URI's host IPs, one could easily score high this kind of
e-mails. Maybe there is also some RBL regarding web hosts, by the way. Is
it?
You mean URIBL? Not only does it exist, it's included with SA. If
the URIBL_* family of ru
Hi,
I searched the mailing list and didn't find anyone mentioning this.. So I
thought I like to add this new method.
We are now seeing what fastmail.fm is also seeing:
http://blog.fastmail.fm/?p=599
Spammers are now in bulk spamming through the free webmail providers using
their botnets and
> Da: Larry Ludwig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi,
>
> I searched the mailing list and didn't find anyone mentioning this.. So I
thought I like to add this new method.
>
> We are now seeing what fastmail.fm is also seeing:
>
> http://blog.fastmail.fm/?p=599
>
> Spammers are now in bulk spammi
Hi,
I searched the mailing list and didn't find anyone mentioning this.. So I
thought I like to add this new method.
We are now seeing what fastmail.fm is also seeing:
http://blog.fastmail.fm/?p=599
Spammers are now in bulk spamming through the free webmail providers using
their botnets and
27 matches
Mail list logo
