On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 10:35 +1200, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> Hi Everyone.
>
>
>
> I am trying to reduce Spam from Forged hotmail addresses. I understand
> that because I am on Spamassassin 3.1.7, that my hotmail rules are
> out-of-date. They do, however, manage to correctly fire on the forge
Gerardo Juarez-Mondragon wrote:
Hi,
I have SpamAssassin version 3.1.9 running on Perl version 5.8.8,
Centos 5.1 OS. SpamAssassin has run perfectly so far.
However, this monday I repeated the usual procedure to train the filters
and received a lot of errors, similar to this pair:
--
Hi,
I have SpamAssassin version 3.1.9 running on Perl version 5.8.8,
Centos 5.1 OS. SpamAssassin has run perfectly so far.
However, this monday I repeated the usual procedure to train the filters
and received a lot of errors, similar to this pair:
plugin: failed
Hi Everyone.
I am trying to reduce Spam from Forged hotmail addresses. I understand
that because I am on Spamassassin 3.1.7, that my hotmail rules are
out-of-date. They do, however, manage to correctly fire on the forged
hotmail Spam, but not with a score high enough to flag the mail as such.
On Monday 14 April 2008 23:42, Justin Mason wrote:
> what version of re2c are you using? 0.12.3 seems to work fine...
I tried it first with 0.12.3 and then with 0.13.4. But I got the same failure
with both of them.
I tried it also only with the "sought" ruleset and re2c 0.13.4 and I got this:
[3
Hello Hiram,
It's not scary, you have to step up and own it - be prepared. The best
way might be to replicate the situation/scenario in a Virtual
environment, and attempt upgrading in there first, to see what might go
wrong, and how you can avoid problems on your live server.
VMWare is great for
what version of re2c are you using? 0.12.3 seems to work fine...
--j.
Stefan Jakobs writes:
> Hello,
>
> I just tried the "sought" ruleset (see
> http://taint.org/2007/08/15/004348a.html). But I was not able to compile it.
> Is the ruleset not compilable or did I something wrong?
>
> I'm us
On Friday 11 April 2008 15:05:59 Justin Mason wrote:
> Mark Martinec writes:
> > It would also block some messages which you may or may not want to block,
> > such as:
> > - some automatic notifications such as calendar/meeting reminders,
> > notifications from ticketing/PR systems (OTRS), statu
On Monday 14 April 2008 22:28:58 Bob Proulx wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> > > I'd like to discuss if returning a mail that went through a
> > > mailing list, back to the sender can be described as backscatter.
> > > I sent the postmaster a mail becouse they fil
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to discuss if returning a mail that went through a mailing list, back
to the sender can be described as backscatter. I sent the postmaster a mail
becouse they filter mails that contains specific words and send a bounce to
the sender.
if they can't
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> > I'd like to discuss if returning a mail that went through a
> > mailing list, back to the sender can be described as backscatter.
> > I sent the postmaster a mail becouse they filter mails that
> > contains specific words and send a bounce
/m:46 spam: 3.2.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on mail.limelyte.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
autolearn=ham version=3.2.4
Received: from static-166-3.aei.ca (HELO ?192.168.1.119?) ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]@192.1
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Mon, April 14, 2008 00:45, Moritz Borgmann wrote:
Now, this setup entails the well-known problem that if X.com publishes an
SPF record, SpamAssassin (3.2.4) spanks the message with SPF_FAIL since it
checks the first *external* relay (mx.B.com), not the first untruste
On Mon, April 14, 2008 21:05, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 18:04, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> "Backscatter" to me means 550 rejects that are sent to a bystander
> because the sending address was forged by some spamming low-life.
http://www.t29.dk/header_check_notes.php old p
I have SA 3.17 running with amavisd-new, dovecot and Postfix 2.4.3 and
Clama/v on freebsd 6.1
I am trying to"teach" sa using the following
sa-learn /var/mail/vmail/example.com/user/.INBOX.spam/cur/
this is a maildir I have put around 175 spam messages in..
I got the following response
Learned
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 18:04, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to discuss if returning a mail that went through a mailing list, back
to the sender can be described as backscatter.
I would say not.
"Backscatter" to me means 550 rejects that are sent to a byst
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 18:04, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to discuss if returning a mail that went through a mailing list,
> back
> to the sender can be described as backscatter.
>
I would say not.
"Backscatter" to me means 550 rejects that are sent to a bystander
because the
Hello,
I just tried the "sought" ruleset (see
http://taint.org/2007/08/15/004348a.html). But I was not able to compile it.
Is the ruleset not compilable or did I something wrong?
I'm using SpamAssassin v3.2.3 and here's the output from sa-compile:
# sudo /usr/bin/sa-compile
[19022] info: gener
Hi,
I'd like to discuss if returning a mail that went through a mailing list, back
to the sender can be described as backscatter. I sent the postmaster a mail
becouse they filter mails that contains specific words and send a bounce to
the sender. Now i'm preparing to dicuss this with him/her and
On Thu, April 10, 2008 18:29, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2008 17:16:40 mouss wrote:
>> I personally have found that SPF causes more problems than it helps, and
>> for that I do not recommend setting SPF record for "general use" domains.
spf supports +ALL, please tell me
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I thought you can reject *or* quarantine,
Wether that "or" is exclusive or not depends on the tools you
use. With MIMEDefang (wich we use) it isn't.
Since SpamAssassin has to be called after the complete message
has been received, there is no technical reason
Johnny Stork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For now I would like to try and
determine why they keep getting listed on spamhaus.
Go to www.spamhaus.org, click on the unfortunately named link
"Remove IP Address", which actually lets you _look up_ an IP address,
and from there you can see why it i
At 08:47 14-04-2008, Johnny Stork wrote:
I have a client running a plesk/qmail hosting service who is having
some trouble with getting their shared ip listed on spamhaus. I
believe they are already running SA in some capacity. I am also
looking into various solutions to suggest to them, possibl
I have a client running a plesk/qmail hosting service who is having some
trouble with getting their shared ip listed on spamhaus. I believe they
are already running SA in some capacity. I am also looking into various
solutions to suggest to them, possibly including mailscanner if it can
be inte
Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> If I set the use_bayes 0
>
> Will that negate the training of spam?
>
this will disable the use of bayes completely. After setting that, no
BAYES_* rules should match any email.
>
> I've trained sa with approx 7000 spam messages , yet I still get the
>
> -2.6 BAYES_
> Jonas Eckerman wrote:
>
> >We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine everything
> >with 9 or higher
On 14.04.08 15:09, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> That should have been
> "reject *and* quarantine everything with 9 or higher"
I thought you can reject *or* quarantine, the combin
Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
If I set the use_bayes 0
Will that negate the training of spam?
this will disable the use of bayes completely. After setting that, no
BAYES_* rules should match any email.
I've trained sa with approx 7000 spam messages , yet I still get the
-2.6 BAYES_00
Matt Kettler a écrit :
mailinglists wrote:
Hello,
I'm sorry if my question is not in the right place here, but I have
searched on the net, without finding any answer
So, here is my question : is it normal that I see not update of the
rules since 2008 January 20th ? It used to be update
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 12:44 -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
> > Just wondering how often people reccomend runing sa-update ?
>
> As often as you like [1]. It's just a DNS query, really cheap if there
> is no update. However...
>
> (a) Generally, there is just one update a da
mailinglists wrote:
Hello,
I'm sorry if my question is not in the right place here, but I have
searched on the net, without finding any answer
So, here is my question : is it normal that I see not update of the
rules since 2008 January 20th ? It used to be updated every week
and I
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine everything
with 9 or higher
That should have been
"reject *and* quarantine everything with 9 or higher"
/J
--
Jonas Eckerman, FSDB & Fruktträdet
http://whatever.frukt.org/
http://www.fsdb.org/
http://www.fruk
If I set the use_bayes 0
Will that negate the training of spam?
I've trained sa with approx 7000 spam messages , yet I still get the
-2.6 BAYES_00
Jonas Eckerman writes:
> Josie Walls wrote:
> > Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
> > as spam is too conservative a number?
>
> I wouldn't.
>
> We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine
> everything with 9 or higher (I read the quaran
Josie Walls wrote:
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
I wouldn't.
We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine
everything with 9 or higher (I read the quarantine reports every
work day), and let e
For users of RMAIL in EMACS not familier with programming, not
familiar with dotfiles, how can spamassassin headers be used
with EMACS or RMAIL existing commands?...
.
> On Saturday 12 April 2008 19:03:49 Chris wrote:
> > Has anyone found a way to have fail: no such user here
>
> you mean "550 Unknown user"?
> actually your mailserver is suposed to do that.
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >, for sen
On Saturday 12 April 2008 19:03:49 Chris wrote:
> Has anyone found a way to have fail: no such user here
you mean "550 Unknown user"?
actually your mailserver is suposed to do that.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, for senders, who
> send from on
> From: Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Chris
> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:03:49 +0200
> To:
> Subject: RE: Can SpamAssassin do an auto fail for these please ?
>
> Has anyone found a way to have fail: no such user here, for senders, who
> send from one of
Has anyone found a way to have fail: no such user here, for senders, who
send from one of a long list, like :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
etc, etc
Please ?
Any help much appreciated.
Chris.
Hello,
I'm sorry if my question is not in the right place here, but I have
searched on the net, without finding any answer
So, here is my question : is it normal that I see not update of the
rules since 2008 January 20th ? It used to be updated every week
and I get a lot of spam wit
Hi Mike,
That sounds on the limit to scarry.
I will rethink it before upgrading then.
Thanks for the advice and the information!
Best regards,
/Hiram
Michael Hutchinson-3 wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>
> Sir,
>
> You or someone else, has managed to break apt-get's info about S.A
On Mon, April 14, 2008 00:45, Moritz Borgmann wrote:
> Now, this setup entails the well-known problem that if X.com publishes an
> SPF record, SpamAssassin (3.2.4) spanks the message with SPF_FAIL since it
> checks the first *external* relay (mx.B.com), not the first untrusted relay
> against X.c
> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/spam003.txt
Could you paste the message itself (queue file)? Would like to see what
my installation has to say about this one. :-)
43 matches
Mail list logo
