Hi
actually, i use a lot of server with spamassassin in direct MX.
I want change this for put two relay before spam scan
/ Spam1
Internet ==> MX Relay <== Spam2
\Spam3
I use DNS Round Robin for MX Relay sen
Ah, hadn't thought of this. If this is the case, how do I migrate the config
for the user that I am logged in as (and getting the correct score) to the
user that spamassassin runs as? I get a little lost with conf hidden in the
home directories and more global locations.
I'll try this now anyway
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. April 2007 17:09 schrieb Scott Lockwood:
>
>> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 17:01 +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
>>
>>> I’m sending my mails via my DSL provider’s SMTP server.
>>>
>> Which puts in the headers that it came from a node in it's network,
>
Just wondering if anyone had any of these handy. I am using the one off
the kde site that looks like it was written for SuSe 10.2. Only problem I
have is that it constantly is logging to the main terminal whenever spamc
calls it up. For example, I'll be typing on the terminal and all of a
sudden
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Duncan Hill wrote:
> A good number of them seem to be coming from proper relays too -
> at least one had SMTP AUTH header information. That, actually, is
> slightly scary, because if it wasn't faked, it implies that the
> malware spreading this spam is picking up more than e-m
On Mon, April 2, 2007 19:14, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Randal, Phil wrote:
>
>
>> A large score for ImageShack uris, not a small one, would seem to
>> be in order, otherwise a good proportion end up in people's mailboxes.
>
> I'm not familiar with ImageShack - is it public hosting
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, J. wrote:
> > I don't know if there's a consensus or not among listmembers, but we
> > regularly see someone wondering why things are all clogged up when
> > autoexpire reaches the point that it takes longer to expire old
> > tokens than the process that's trying to filter m
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Randal, Phil wrote:
> A large score for ImageShack uris, not a small one, would seem to
> be in order, otherwise a good proportion end up in people's
> mailboxes.
I'm not familiar with ImageShack - is it public hosting of images ala
Flickr, such that people might legitimately
--- "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
>
> > Autoexpire will keep the db size approximately constant, even when
> > your totals get higher. Otherwise, it would grow without bound.
> > Disk is cheap, but not free!
>
> Yabbut time can become *very*
Mark Adams wrote:
> Ok, Fair enough.. I will change this listing to a whitelist_from_rcvd
> as I assume this list is farmed by spammers. (Should be using that
> always of course!)
>
> Header below.
>
> Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: from hopnet.hopkins.co.uk ([10.0.0.23]
> hel
Am Montag, 2. April 2007 17:09 schrieb Scott Lockwood:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 17:01 +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > I’m sending my mails via my DSL provider’s SMTP server.
>
> Which puts in the headers that it came from a node in it's network,
> which makes the machine the mail originated from,
Jeff writes:
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
>
> > On Friday I attended the annual Spam Conference at MIT. While
> > there, I spoke with a person who was an employee of Sophos. They
> > are very proud of the proprietary spam filtering they do. We talked
> > about SA and
On Mon, April 2, 2007 16:34, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
> What I can't figure out is if this is a new kind of spam or if I can
> update it using the available rulesets (with sa-update or RDJ).
> Search engine, fax scanting software?
> http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5553/webvq2.gif
Custom rulese
A large score for ImageShack uris, not a small one, would seem to be in
order, otherwise a good proportion end up in people's mailboxes.
Unfortunately ImageShack's "report abuse" link on their webpage (
http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?page=email&q=abuse ) isn't
responding, so I guess I'm not
On Monday, Apr 2nd 2007 at 12:18 -0400, quoth Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems):
=>> It turns out that the basis for their analysis is to look at
=>> the size of
=>> the image as well as the number of colors. 99.99% of all spam
=>> images have
=>> less than 16 colors. Once they found an image wit
> It turns out that the basis for their analysis is to look at
> the size of
> the image as well as the number of colors. 99.99% of all spam
> images have
> less than 16 colors. Once they found an image with 22 colors.
> This sounds
> like a dirt cheap way to get a huge boost in spam
> recog
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven W. Orr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:01 AM
> To: spamassassin-users
> Subject: Fundamental question about spam image processing.
>
>
> On Friday I attended the annual Spam Conference at MIT. While
> there, I
> spoke wit
On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On Friday I attended the annual Spam Conference at MIT. While
there, I spoke with a person who was an employee of Sophos. They
are very proud of the proprietary spam filtering they do. We talked
about SA and FuzzyOCR and I learned that they
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
> What I can't figure out is if this is a new kind of spam or if I
> can update it using the available rulesets (with sa-update or
> RDJ).
>
> Can some one give an hint?
> Received: from dsl51B7EDE5.pool.t-online.hu
> (dsl51B7EDE5.pool.t-online.hu [81.
Since this morning I'm receiving spam like that below..
What I can't figure out is if this is a new kind of spam or if I can
update it using the available rulesets (with sa-update or RDJ).
Can some one give an hint?
Here one of the messages with it's haeder:
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 2 1
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
> Autoexpire will keep the db size approximately constant, even when
> your totals get higher. Otherwise, it would grow without bound.
> Disk is cheap, but not free!
Yabbut time can become *very* expensive.
I don't know if there's a consensus or not among li
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 17:01 +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> I’m sending my mails via my DSL provider’s SMTP server.
Which puts in the headers that it came from a node in it's network,
which makes the machine the mail originated from, you guessed it, one
that has a dynamic IP address.
Your best b
Am Montag, 2. April 2007 17:01 schrieb Wolfgang Jeltsch:
> Hello,
>
> what does HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR mean? Why is it rated that high?
>
> The reason behind my question is that most of my e-mails seem to get
> HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR assigned to them.
Okay, maybe not most of them. I have attached a co
Hello,
what does HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR mean? Why is it rated that high?
The reason behind my question is that most of my e-mails seem to get
HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR assigned to them. In the From: field, I typically use an
address which belongs to a domain registered by me and pointing to my own
se
On Friday I attended the annual Spam Conference at MIT. While there, I
spoke with a person who was an employee of Sophos. They are very proud of
the proprietary spam filtering they do. We talked about SA and FuzzyOCR
and I learned that they do extremely accurate spam analysis on image
attachmen
Autoexpire will keep the db size approximately constant, even when your
totals get higher. Otherwise, it would grow without bound. Disk is cheap,
but not free!
Dan
-Original Message-
From: J. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:18 AM
To: Dan Barker; users@spamassassin
Guys
Looks like a MailScanner config issue.
May I suggest we take this over the MailScannre list and we'll help
there..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 02 A
kiwidesign wrote:
>
> Where would I look to find the list of hits, at scan time?
>
In the message headers, in the X-Mailscanner-Spam-Status.
However, you might have to re-configure MailScanner to add this to
nonspam, I think it doesn't by default. (bad for debugging, so I'm
pretty sure I chang
--- Dan Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, dump magic and note that the nspam and nham increase.
>
> -Original Message-
> Subject: YA sa-learn question
>
> I thought I had solved my sa-learn issues by always doing su qscand
Thanks, that worked. Does this seem like a reasonable ns
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, kiwidesign wrote:
I think you may misunderstand.
We have a certain email, that is spam. Lets call it 'A'.
When the email A passes through the mail system, it is grabbed by
MailScanner, which in turn puts it through SpamAssassin. The mail is then
delivered if the score is l
On Fri, March 30, 2007 01:15, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, maillist wrote:
>> John D. Hardin wrote:
>> > Can anyone recommend a non-abusive way to validate email addresses?
>> Send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and ask them?
> Ba-dump-bump!
> Can anyone recommend a non-abusive *au
31 matches
Mail list logo
