On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 11:34 -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
> > As far as blacklisting entire registrars, can you
> > tell us any registrars that are 100% bad? I can't.
> >
> > Jeff C.
> >
>
> Allegedly 100% spam. Innocent until proven guilty, ect.
>
> NUCLEAR NAMES, INC.
> RED PILLAR
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 17:31 -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mike Yrabedra wrote:
>
> > Is anyone else getting these google link spams?
>
I've not had any complaints about them sneaking past the existing rules.
> Yes, we've been discussing them for the past week.
>
> It's a
You don't have the DCC plugin enabled, so the DCC_CHECK rule doesn't
exist.
It is surrounded by #ifplugin lines.
OK, I modified v310.pre and I will see if that works
Note that some of the net checks require more setup than simply removing the
hash mark from the ifplugin line. You may need ex
>>> maybe if there was some way to establish a hierachy at startup
>>> which groups rule processing into nodes. some nodes finish
>>> quickly, some have dependencies, some are negative, etc.
Just wanted to point out, this topic came out when site dns
cache service started to fail due to excessiv
John D. Hardin writes:
Loren mentioned to me in a private email: "common subexpressions".
Whoops! Matt Kettler mentioned it to me, not Loren. Sorry!
I was going to mention that I didn't think that had been me.
Unless I was asleep when I wrote the reply. Which could have been the case.
:-)
You don't have the DCC plugin enabled, so the DCC_CHECK rule doesn't exist.
It is surrounded by #ifplugin lines.
OK, I modified v310.pre and I will see if that works
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Ruleset-load-order-dependencies-tp15032984p15033115.html
Sent from th
No. The problem is that you don't have the modules loaded which would let
the
rules get defined. The meta dependencies are checked after everything has
loaded.
--
How do I ensure that the proper modules are loaded and what are they called?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabbl
info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
'RAZOR2_CHECK'
info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
'DCC_CHECK'
info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
'PYZOR_CHECK'
You don't have the DCC plugin enabled, so the DCC_CHECK rule
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mike Yrabedra wrote:
> Is anyone else getting these google link spams?
Yes, we've been discussing them for the past week.
It's a good idea to check the list archives before asking if there are
rules for a particular type of spam.
> http://www.gooogle.com/search?
>
> A
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:25:19PM -0800, byrnejb wrote:
> info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
> 'RAZOR2_CHECK'
> info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency 'DCC_CHECK'
> info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
> 'PYZOR_CHECK'
OS - CentOS-5.1 / Redhat ES5
I am getting messages of this from when I start up SpamAssassin v.3.1.9 from
MailScanner v.4.66.5 in --debug-sa mode:
info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
'RAZOR2_CHECK'
info: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency 'DCC_C
Is anyone else getting these google link spams?
They all seem to be endowment ad.
Like this...
Is it small?
http://www.gooogle.com/search?
Anyone got a rule to kill these?
--
Mike B^)>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:24:00PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>Jim Maul writes:
>> Justin Mason wrote:
>> > John D. Hardin writes:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
>> >>>
>> Neither am I. Another t
On Jan 22, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Rubin Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 10:45 -0600, Michael Parker wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Rubin Bennett wrote:
WTF am I doing wrong?!
Not including debug logs in your message.
User prefs does not work with spamassassin, so you won't see any
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 19:12 +0100, Alex Woick wrote:
> Rubin Bennett schrieb am 22.01.2008 17:12:
>
> > I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (from Mandriva 2008.0), MySQL 5.0.45,
> > perl-DBD-mysql-4.005, libdbi-drivers-dbd-mysql-0.8.2.
>
> What about perl-DBI-*? The libdbi-* drivers are not for perl,
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 10:45 -0600, Michael Parker wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Rubin Bennett wrote:
> >
> > WTF am I doing wrong?!
>
> Not including debug logs in your message.
>
> User prefs does not work with spamassassin, so you won't see anything
> there, but you should be seeing
Rubin Bennett schrieb am 22.01.2008 17:12:
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (from Mandriva 2008.0), MySQL 5.0.45,
perl-DBD-mysql-4.005, libdbi-drivers-dbd-mysql-0.8.2.
What about perl-DBI-*? The libdbi-* drivers are not for perl, they are
for C programming. For database access to MySQL from Per
John D. Hardin writes:
>
> Loren mentioned to me in a private email: "common subexpressions".
Whoops! Matt Kettler mentioned it to me, not Loren. Sorry!
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Maul writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > John D. Hardin writes:
> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
> >>>
> Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
> rules that actually
Justin Mason wrote:
John D. Hardin writes:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
rules that actually hit and affect the score is rather small. The
greates
John D. Hardin writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
> >
> > >Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
> > >rules that actually hit and affect the score is rather small. The
> > >great
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> >Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
> >rules that actually hit and affect the score is rather small. The
> >greatest optimization would be to not test
On Jan 22, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Rubin Bennett wrote:
WTF am I doing wrong?!
Not including debug logs in your message.
User prefs does not work with spamassassin, so you won't see anything
there, but you should be seeing something for Bayes SQL and AWL SQL if
they are configured correctly.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> > > m,https?://(?:[^\./]+\.)*goo+gle(?:pages)?\.(?:[a-z][a-z][a-z]?(?:\.[a-z][a-z])?)/+.*[?&](?:btni|adurl),i
>
> If I understand that pattern, both the '*' are 'unbounded'???
>
> This might 'break' yo
> As far as blacklisting entire registrars, can you
> tell us any registrars that are 100% bad? I can't.
>
> Jeff C.
>
Allegedly 100% spam. Innocent until proven guilty, ect.
NUCLEAR NAMES, INC.
RED PILLAR, INC.
MOUZZ INTERACTIVE INC.
NAMEVIEW, INC.
SOLID HUB, INC.
COMPANA, LLC
RED REGI
Hello all...
I've spent the past 2 days trying, utterly unsuccessfully, to get spamd
to run against a MySQL database. My head is bloody from banging it on
the wall, and now I prostrate myself to the mailing list gods in the
hopes that you may be able to help me :)
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>> I would not be terribly surprised to find out that on average
>> there was no appreciable difference in running all rules of all
>> types in priority order, over the current method;
>
>Nei
Bank phish in our spam trap ends as follows. Is it just junk, or
is it trying to do something?
Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology
Thank you for
banking with us!
HuntingtonNational
Bank CustomerSupport
*
© 20
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 13:01 +0100, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> > > m,https?://(?:[^\./]+\.)*goo+gle(?:pages)?\.(?:[a-z][a-z][a-z]?(?:\.[a-z][a-z])?)/+.*[?&](?:btni|adurl),i
>
> If I understand that pattern, both the '*' are 'unbounded'???
>
> This mig
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > m,https?://(?:[^\./]+\.)*goo+gle(?:pages)?\.(?:[a-z][a-z][a-z]?(?:\.[a-z][a-z])?)/+.*[?&](?:btni|adurl),i
If I understand that pattern, both the '*' are 'unbounded'???
This might 'break' your spamfilter, if spamassassin gobbles
up all memory during
30 matches
Mail list logo
