Hi Victor,
At 22:02 08-04-2008, Victor Sudakov wrote:
I have the following rule in local.cf:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] dtdm.tomsk.ru
Please help me figure out why the rule does not work. Below is a sample
message where I think the rule should work but actually does not.
[snip]
Re
Colleagues,
I have the following rule in local.cf:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] dtdm.tomsk.ru
Please help me figure out why the rule does not work. Below is a sample
message where I think the rule should work but actually does not.
Perhaps someone with experience could run it through "sp
A while ago I asked what was the scam about those "I am a boored
grrl, pleas write me".
I have finally found the answer.
http://ikillspammers.blogspot.com/
The answer is that they get men to talk to them and then start
concocting various stories about how they were beaten up, raped
anally, and
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:36 -0700, ahgu wrote:
> They forged the header with my email addr as the return address.
> When it get bounced back by a server, everything is valid. Since the server
> strip off most of the content, it can pass the spamassassin very easily. I
> wonder if anyone got this
They forged the header with my email addr as the return address.
When it get bounced back by a server, everything is valid. Since the server
strip off most of the content, it can pass the spamassassin very easily. I
wonder if anyone got this problem?
Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apri
On Tue, April 8, 2008 21:10, ahgu wrote:
> Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)
what mta have 2 days of notifying as default ?
solutiion is more to stop notifying :-)
its imho not a spam problem, just a
On Tue, April 8, 2008 21:04, Evan Platt wrote:
> SPF is a good start...
> http://spf.pobox.com/
moved to http://openspf.org/
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Another email:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on xphotonics.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=URI_HEX autolearn=no
version=3.2.4
X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-Spam-Report:
* 1.3 URI_HEX URI: URI hostname has long hex
SPF is a good start...
http://spf.pobox.com/
Do you actually have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] account? If not, don't
accept mail for invalid e-mail addresses.
ahgu wrote:
somebody is using my email as the bounce-back return email.
How do I avoid the problem?
thanks
Andrew
X-Spam-Checker-Version: Sp
somebody is using my email as the bounce-back return email.
How do I avoid the problem?
thanks
Andrew
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on xphotonics.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS
autolearn=failed version=3.2.4
X-
> >Aha. Well, since network rules are run in parallel, I don't think turning
> >off some of them will help you much. And what I say is still valid, even if
> >it applies only in some cases :)
>
> I see your point, problem is the new SA is taking a much larger load,
> and catching less spam. I am
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 08.04.08 10:52, DAve wrote:
We recently upgraded to SA 3.2.4 and are experiencing much slower
processing. After watching my rule hits for a few days I would like to
remove some rules (set score to 0) to gain back some speed.
Ami I correct in believing that the
Hi,
what's the current status of the Botnet plugin for SpamAssassin? I used
it in my old SA 3.1.8 and think it was doing a good job. I heard that it
should be part of SA now, but I couldn't find it by grepping the default
rule files. Nor did I find it at SARE or elsewhere on the web. All I see
> >On 08.04.08 10:52, DAve wrote:
> >>We recently upgraded to SA 3.2.4 and are experiencing much slower
> >>processing. After watching my rule hits for a few days I would like to
> >>remove some rules (set score to 0) to gain back some speed.
> >>
> >>Ami I correct in believing that the below rul
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:05PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 08.04.08 07:43, The Doctor wrote:
> > > http://www.nk.ca/blog/ .
> > >
> > > In that blog, there is a section for Spam and Phish for your reasearch.
> >
> > whose research?
On 08.04.08 09:50, The Doctor wrote:
> Any
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:05PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 08.04.08 07:43, The Doctor wrote:
> > http://www.nk.ca/blog/ .
> >
> > In that blog, there is a section for Spam and Phish for your reasearch.
>
> whose research?
>
Anyone doing anti-spam research.
> --
> Matus UHLAR
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 08.04.08 10:52, DAve wrote:
We recently upgraded to SA 3.2.4 and are experiencing much slower
processing. After watching my rule hits for a few days I would like to
remove some rules (set score to 0) to gain back some speed.
Ami I correct in believing that the
All,
I posted a question regarding SpamAssasssin errors which MailScanner --lint
seemed to detect. It was suggested to me that this is an SA issue so, with
your indulgence, I'd like to ask here.
I'm now running mailscanner-4.68.8-1 on a CentOS 3 box, along with
spamassassin-3.2.4-1.el3.rf fro
On 08.04.08 10:52, DAve wrote:
> We recently upgraded to SA 3.2.4 and are experiencing much slower
> processing. After watching my rule hits for a few days I would like to
> remove some rules (set score to 0) to gain back some speed.
>
> Ami I correct in believing that the below rules will not b
Good morning,
We recently upgraded to SA 3.2.4 and are experiencing much slower
processing. After watching my rule hits for a few days I would like to
remove some rules (set score to 0) to gain back some speed.
Ami I correct in believing that the below rules will not be run and no
lookup wil
On 08.04.08 07:43, The Doctor wrote:
> http://www.nk.ca/blog/ .
>
> In that blog, there is a section for Spam and Phish for your reasearch.
whose research?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
V
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> /usr/share/spamassassin < this dir is maintained by some package managers
> /var/lib/spamassassin is entirely done by spamassassin :-)
>
> i belive it was the real reason not to overwrite files
The slightly longer version:
- origi
http://www.nk.ca/blog/ .
In that blog, there is a section for Spam and Phish for your reasearch.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ici [EMAIL PROTECTED]
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
USA petition for dissolution of your nation!
--
This m
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:33 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Sorry for previous mail, I accidentally hit send...
>
> > On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 23:25 -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
> > > Thanks for the reply. I thought the purpose of adding the
> > >
> > > 'whitelist_bounce_relays mailserver_name.co
Sorry for previous mail, I accidentally hit send...
> On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 23:25 -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply. I thought the purpose of adding the
> >
> > 'whitelist_bounce_relays mailserver_name.com'
> >
> > in local.cf was so that SA could assign a higher score to bounces
On 07.04.08 12:17, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> From: Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:17:36 +0200
> Subject: Re: Low Scores on Bounce Backs
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>
> On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 23:25 -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply. I t
Almost all (>95%) of my spam is tagged as BAYES_99 by SA (which is
great), but only approx. 60% of my spam is classified as spam by my
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12. Thunderbird also uses a a bayesian filtering
system. I always learn all of my spam and all of my ham in both systems
perhaps once a week,
On Tue, March 25, 2008 15:27, Patrick Sherrill wrote:
> Is there any reason not to put the updates in /usr/share/spamassassin using
> sa-update with the --updatedir parameter?
/usr/share/spamassassin < this dir is maintained by some package managers
/var/lib/spamassassin is entirely done by spama
28 matches
Mail list logo
