On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Bob Proulx wrote:
> David Baron wrote:
> > > /etc/rc0.d/S35networking
> > > /etc/rc6.d/S35networking
> > > /etc/rcS.d/S40networking
> >
> > Is not the final run level 5.
>
> The default runlevel is 2 in Debian. Unless otherwise modified all
> run levels have the sa
David Baron wrote:
> > /etc/rc0.d/S35networking
> > /etc/rc6.d/S35networking
> > /etc/rcS.d/S40networking
>
> Is not the final run level 5.
The default runlevel is 2 in Debian. Unless otherwise modified all
run levels have the same configuration and are identical to each other
in Debian.
Hi
I am using SA 3.1.7. I want to update it.
I tried this command
sa-update --nogpg --channel updates.spamassassin.org --channel
saupdates.openprotect.com
But i got this error ""Argument "1.26_01" isnt numeric in subroutine entry
at sa-update line 91""
--
Sg
Hi Chris,
At 20:02 24-07-2007, Chris wrote:
Ever since changing from my Earthlink account to my Embarq account scam fwds
to the above bounce:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mail-gw.usss.treas.gov[10.119.253.67] said: 550
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Blocked
(in reply to
Ever since changing from my Earthlink account to my Embarq account scam fwds
to the above bounce:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mail-gw.usss.treas.gov[10.119.253.67] said: 550
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Blocked (in reply to
RCPT TO command)
One reason that the Embarq QA
The DUL account, relayed through the ISP. The ISP's IP should be checked in
the DUL, not the end-user. I agree about all the RFC junk, but Bellsouth.net
is not my domain. They are a fairly large (in the Southeast US) ISP and
really should have a clue. Unfortunately, they don't. The REPORT showed th
The reverse dns. (and helo)
Received: from hubert382f6e2f
(adsl-065-012-175-061.sip.asm.bellsouth.net[65.12.175.61])
by bellsouth.net (frfwmhc01) with SMTP
Aol won't accept email from something like that either.
To fix: assign a dns name, fwd and reverse, then set it up in your mail
se
My sister-in-law is using the appropriate outbound SMTP server. Why'd
SORBS_DUL misfire? (Oh, not misfire, but fire. The 65... Address is a
dial-up, but the 207... Is not. I wonder why SORBS has it listed?
Dan
HEADERS:
Received: from fmailhost01.isp.att.net [207.115.11.51] by
mail.visioncomm.n
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Those init.d files are not stock Debian. They have been modified.
>
> However since the rc0.d and rcS.d files still exists with low numbers
> then networking will start very early. Those S99 files are simply red
> herrings for you distracting you from
Jerry Durand wrote:
At 11:43 PM 7/23/2007, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
ClamD with http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/ work pretty well here.
Be sure and read http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/clamav/usage.htm
Warning to Mac users:
I tried to use their automated script in OS X Server and got a script
error
At 11:43 PM 7/23/2007, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
ClamD with http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/ work pretty well here.
Be sure and read http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/clamav/usage.htm
Warning to Mac users:
I tried to use their automated script in OS X Server and got a script
error (SED error). I cont
David Baron wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >I have:
> > >/etc/rc0.d/S35networking
> > >/etc/rc2.d/S99networking
> > >/etc/rc3.d/S99networking
> > >/etc/rc5.d/S99networking
> > >/etc/rc6.d/S35networking
> > >/etc/rcS.d/S40networking
> > >
> > >S99 is what is being hit.
> >
> > And I would call ANY
"Meng Weng Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it possible to write some rules, get their results and
> > examinate these results in other rules?
>
> you probably want a meta-rule, see manpage for
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
I don't mean the spam point results of __RULE1 + __RULE2,
I mean re
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:47:06PM +0300, Paul Lenz wrote:
> 1.) Phishing:
> (a href="DANGEROUS_LINK")LINK_OF_YOUR_BANK(/a)
> rule 1 grabs DANGEROUS_LINK and LINK_OF_YOUR_BANK
> rule 2 compares the results whether both have the same domain,
> if not --> seems to be phishing, give some spam points
John Rudd wrote:
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
I have a 'political problem' with that. We 'drop' knowv viruses into
a quarantine directory without further notice, and only once in years
somebody complained and wanted his virus back :-)
You could even do it as 5 different instances (1 for base clama
you probably want a meta-rule, see manpage for Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:47 PM, Paul Lenz wrote:
I hope this is not a FAQ...
Is it possible to write some rules, get their results and examinate
these results in other rules?
I hope this is not a FAQ...
Is it possible to write some rules, get their results and examinate
these results in other rules?
Two examples (I used round brackets for correct display):
1.) Phishing:
(a href="DANGEROUS_LINK")LINK_OF_YOUR_BANK(/a)
rule 1 grabs DANGEROUS_LINK and LINK_OF_YOUR_BANK
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 July 2007, David Baron wrote:
> >> >> Humm, with my lashup here that Joanne helped me setup,
> >> >> S78spamassassin starts a few copies of spamd, and fetchmail is
> >> >> started much later in S99local. Its fetchmail that calls procmail
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
anyone knows of a SA plugin to score mails based on challenging the sender
e-mail?
I've got an experimental caching SAV plugin (wich tries to
mitigate the general obnoxiousness of SAV a tinty bit) for SA at
http://whatever.frukt.org.
I'm not recommending using SAV
> > what does clamav checking in that scanner do then? It should call
> > clamdscan
> > asap (before SA) and when a virus is found, the mail should be imediately
> > rejected, the same way it's rejected when SA tells so.
On 23.07.07 20:31, Robert - eLists wrote:
> It quarantines and notifies admin
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, David Baron wrote:
>> >> Humm, with my lashup here that Joanne helped me setup, S78spamassassin
>> >> starts a few copies of spamd, and fetchmail is started much later in
>> >> S99local. Its fetchmail that calls procmail, and its procmail that
>> >> calls the spamd's, so t
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
Did somebody of you create an extra 'instance' of clamad-filter to fight
spam with spam-sigs only, without scaning for virus-sigs?
I'm running two instances of clamd in our mail gateway.
One instance has the stock signatures (minus phishing sigs) and
is used before Sp
updates.spamassassin.org has no A record. It has a TXT record though. :)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 07:44:59AM -0700, Gary W. Smith wrote:
> Theo,
>
> I just checked it out on dnsstuff.com (which is where I should have also
> checked earlier but sleep depervation...). It's also failing there as
Theo,
I just checked it out on dnsstuff.com (which is where I should have also
checked earlier but sleep depervation...). It's also failing there as well.
You might have a cached record.
How I am searching:
Searching for updates.spamassassin.org A record at b.root-servers.net
[192.228.79
As far as I know, DNS is working fine for the channel (tested from random work
machine):
$ host -t txt 1.1.3.updates.spamassassin.org
1.1.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text "555165"
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 07:34:44AM -0700, Gary W. Smith wrote:
> Sorry, should have been update instead o
Sorry, should have been update instead of users in subject...
From: Gary W. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 7/24/2007 7:25 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: sa-update is failing on users.spamassassin.org
Running the below command starting f
On 07/24/07 15:00, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
> In SA 3.1.8, I am trying to use the clamav plugin from
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin
>
> spamassassin -t -D output includes dbg: ClamAV: Detected virus:
> Email.Stk.Gen596.Sanesecurity.07071900.pdf
>
> It adds a header X-Spam-Viru
On 07/24/07 15:43, OliverScott wrote:
full CLAMAV eval:check_clamav()
describe CLAMAV Clam AntiVirus detected something...
score CLAMAV 0.001
If you don't want CLAMAV to score (high), apparently you can rename it
to __CLAMAV, works fine here.
To make the meta rule work too, I had to giv
Running the below command starting failing in the last couple days saying it
can't find updates.spamassassin.org DNS entry
/usr/bin/sa-update --nogpg --channel updates.spamassassin.org --channel
saupdates.openprotect.com
saupdates.openprotect.com is working fine though. Are we having a DNS i
On 07/24/07 15:43, OliverScott wrote:
You need to set a high priority for the meta rules as otherwise they are
evaluated BEFORE the ClamAV plugin is used (I think?). I am not an expert in
how SA works, but I eventually came up with the following solution (for
using several different 3rd party c
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 at 20:48 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Other than FuzzyOCR, is there other way to filter graphic spams? I had
ImageInfo but seem like it is not working.
PS... also check out ImageInfo.pm
http://www.rulesemporium.com/plugins.htm
Yes I had that, but it is not working
You need to set a high priority for the meta rules as otherwise they are
evaluated BEFORE the ClamAV plugin is used (I think?). I am not an expert in
how SA works, but I eventually came up with the following solution (for
using several different 3rd party clamav signatures):
This is my clamav.cf
and can we find and drop this idiot too?
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from mail.secnap.net ([10.70.1.3]) by secnap2.secnap.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:54:23 -0400
Received: by mail.secnap.net (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id DA07716484D
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, jdow wrote:
> With snail mail it is nigh on to impossible to interrupt the
> reception process and reject a piece of mail. I simply place it
> into the trash on my way into the house. (Some things, like
> unwanted subscription offers or credit card offers, I tear in
> half. On
In SA 3.1.8, I am trying to use the clamav plugin from
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin
spamassassin -t -D output includes
dbg: ClamAV: Detected virus: Email.Stk.Gen596.Sanesecurity.07071900.pdf
It adds a header
X-Spam-Virus: Yes (Email.Stk.Gen596.Sanesecurity.07071900.pdf)
all
Other than FuzzyOCR, is there other way to filter graphic spams? I had
ImageInfo but seem like it is not working.
PS... also check out ImageInfo.pm
http://www.rulesemporium.com/plugins.htm
Yes I had that, but it is not working for me.
[26559] dbg: config: read file /etc/mail/spamassassin/imagei
Spamassassin List wrote:
Other than FuzzyOCR, is there other way to filter graphic spams? I
had ImageInfo but seem like it is not working.
PS... also check out ImageInfo.pm
http://www.rulesemporium.com/plugins.htm
Yes I had that, but it is not working for me.
[26559] dbg: config: read file /et
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:16 PM
> To: Michael Scheidell
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins
>
>
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
> What version of Mail::DKIM are you
>> >Problem is that the S78 will start spamassassin but that start does not
>> >necessarily get a valid rule-set. For that, the internet connection must
>> > be up at the time.
>>
>> And why would it not be when the network start is S10network?
>
>I have:
>/etc/rc0.d/S35networking
>/etc/rc2.d/S99ne
> >> Humm, with my lashup here that Joanne helped me setup, S78spamassassin
> >> starts a few copies of spamd, and fetchmail is started much later in
> >> S99local. Its fetchmail that calls procmail, and its procmail that
> >> calls the spamd's, so there is no time that SA can be bypassed.
> >>
>
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: Koopmann, Jan-Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ...omissis...
>
> My personal recommendation: I used SAV several years with EXIM and
> simply added a header with the SAV result. This header was scored in SA
> with a custom rule. No plugin necessary.
Intere
Other than FuzzyOCR, is there other way to filter graphic spams? I had
ImageInfo but seem like it is not working.
PS... also check out ImageInfo.pm
http://www.rulesemporium.com/plugins.htm
Yes I had that, but it is not working for me.
[26559] dbg: config: read file /etc/mail/spamassassin
> > and isn't
> > considered to be that much better than C/R (it doesn't clutter a
> > forged-sender's mail box, but it can bog down a forged-sender's mail
> > server with verification requests).
>
> Well, it may be. I know, however, that a lot of people is doing this
at
> the
> MTA level in order
Hi Daryl,
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:56:02 -0400, "Daryl C. W. O'Shea"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd be glad for your suggestions re sa-update error.
>>
>> $ sa-update
>> can't resolve "l27.0.0.1" to address at
>
> L27.0.0.1 isn't quite the same as 127.0.0.
44 matches
Mail list logo
