Tony Le Piane wrote:
>> We have been running our service for almost 5 years and this problem
>>
> started
>
>> with this ISP client of yours (TELEBEC) last week after they upgraded
>>
> their
>
>> servers to the latest version of SPAMASSASSIN I'm told. We are now being
>> consider
René Berber wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
>
>> I've gotten a number of image spams that don't trigger FuzzyOcr at all
>> for some reason, e.g. http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/DPO.gif
> [snip]
>> Using spamassassin-3.2.3, FuzzyOcr-3.4, gocr-0.44, ocrad-0.16 on
>> FreeBSD-6.2. If I use the FuzzyOcr sa
If
header J Delivered-To =~ /.mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]/
doesn't match this mail, but
header J Delivered-To =~ /mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]/
does, why doesn't
header J Delivered-To =~ /^mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]/
match? Odd, need to add a /m. Odd that the $ still matched. Must be
at t
>> However, if there are no updates
Which I bet you will be surprised to find will always be the case
these days, unless you use yet unreleased SVN versions of spamassassin.
John Thompson wrote:
> I've gotten a number of image spams that don't trigger FuzzyOcr at all
> for some reason, e.g. http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/DPO.gif
[snip]
> Using spamassassin-3.2.3, FuzzyOcr-3.4, gocr-0.44, ocrad-0.16 on
> FreeBSD-6.2. If I use the FuzzyOcr sample image spams, it seems to
Dan Barker wrote:
> Hold on! If you are USING the affected system, then since you replied
> to me directly instead of through the list, I have your message
> headers, and they went through my SpamAssassin, and did not trigger
> the INVALID_DATE rule.
Yep, same here. The Date header looks fine to
I'm trying to get received headers to parse correctly because the ones from
CommuniGate Pro don't always. And, since I'm already modifying the headers
in my connector due to the MTA not being able to do RDNS without rejecting
based on it, I'm not aware that certain types of headers don't parse
corr
I've gotten a number of image spams that don't trigger FuzzyOcr at all
for some reason, e.g. http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/DPO.gif
If I run the email through spamassassin manually, e.g. "spamassassin -D
FuzzyOcr < DPO.eml" there's no indication that FuzzyOcr found anything
at all:
[66152] dbg: Fuz
Tomorrow I'll be reporting to JM. Let me know if you have any more hits on
this issue.
Dan Barker
-Original Message-
From: Dan Barker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:34 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Why'd VBounce not hit?
After opening bu
Matthias Leisi wrote:
Amavisd does not use the spamassassin command line binary, but:
- --- cut ---
package Amavis::SpamControl;
[..]
use Mail::SpamAssassin;
- --- cut ---
In the logfile of amavisd, you'll also see something like:
| Aug 30 20:26:11 amavis[27896]: Module Mail::SpamAssassin 3
At 08:15 31-08-2007, Tony Le Piane wrote:
That was a typo when I copied .. its actually -0400
I have compared it to other SMTP headers and don't see any differences.
Also looked at RFC 2822 and we comply.
This is the INVALID_DATE rule:
Date !~
/^\s*(?:(?i:Mon|Tue|Wed|Thu|Fri|Sat|Sun),\s)?\s*
I think you to post the actual email somewhere where it won't be mangled by
typos or whatever and then post the link for our review. We can run the
message through our SpamAssassin systems to see the result.
Hold on! If you are USING the affected system, then since you replied to me
directly inste
Hi Duane,
That was a typo when I copied .. its actually -0400
I have compared it to other SMTP headers and don't see any differences.
Also looked at RFC 2822 and we comply.
As mentioned we been running this services for over 5 years and no all of a
sudden we get classified as spam. I don't ge
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 at 10:38 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
We have been running our service for almost 5 years and this problem
started
with this ISP client of yours (TELEBEC) last week after they upgraded
their
servers to the latest version of SPAMASSASSIN I'm told. We are now be
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, OliverScott wrote:
> >1. Most users don't know how, arn't allowed, or can't be bothered to train
> >Bayes. In most cases spamassassin is left to auto-train bayes.
On 27.08.07 09:46, Chris St. Pierre wrote:
> Disagree. With proper training -- or if you make it trivially easy
> We have been running our service for almost 5 years and this problem
started
> with this ISP client of yours (TELEBEC) last week after they upgraded
their
> servers to the latest version of SPAMASSASSIN I'm told. We are now being
> considered spammers.
>
>
>
> Firstly I have been told that
> We have been running our service for almost 5 years and this problem
started
> with this ISP client of yours (TELEBEC) last week after they upgraded
their
> servers to the latest version of SPAMASSASSIN I'm told. We are now being
> considered spammers.
>
>
>
> Firstly I have been told that
17 matches
Mail list logo
