I just setup a server 2 days ago and had one active domain running in it.
I still get tons of spams, the hit rate was well below 10%. Out of every 10
spams, less than 1 was tagged in average.
My score to tag is 5, 8 to delete
Now I focus my customizations on plugins which I hope can enhance
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
Hi,
just 10 minutes ago i received a false positive. First i was confused then i
figured that my SA setup didn't actually flag it, but the senders SA.
So, how could i tell SA to remove any X-Spam flags in case the mail has been
identified as non spam?
SpamAssasi
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You may put other servers, not under your control, to
trusted_networks, if you trust them not to originate spam.
^
Matus, I believe that assertion is incorrect...
Actually, that's no
archaic0 wrote:
I put SA on my server and have had it running for a while now (couple
months). I have been training it with ham and spam this whold time time and
am probably up to a couple hundred messages of ham and a couple thousand
messages of spam.
What I am seeing is a TON of email that is
One item of interest that I forgot. The below is from a message I posted to
the Razor list back on the 4th of June:
I have the razor plug-in enabled and razor-admin -v reports the version to be:
Razor Agents 2.84, protocol version 3
If I go and disable the razor plug-in and stop and start spama
I sent a post with the above subject about a week and a half ago and Justin
Mason stated that its apparently a Razor problem. I sent the same post to the
Razor list and received 'no' replies. I don't doubt Justin at all, however,
with no replies from the Razor list I'm turning back to the SA lis
On Friday 13 June 2008 7:09 pm, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
> >
> >trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
> >
> >Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
>
> I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
>
> I th
>Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
>
>trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
>
>Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
I think your can throw it away.
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:56 am, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >Should I put the IP for mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com on the
> > trusted_networks line? That comes out to be 208.47.184.3. I also had this
> > as internal_networks internal_networks 71.48.160.0/20, is that correct?
>
> Yes, if that mailrel
On 12-Jun-08, at 9:41 PM, mouss wrote:
if it really came from them, it's probably an isolated/unsupported
initiative from a "marketer gone crazy".
report the problem to their abuse team (or anyone in their tech
team). In all companies I worked for, I've seen few guys coming up
with bad "go
You've presented good logic for acceping mail from self to self.
But you haven't explained by using the AWL for mail from self to
self is better than not having it.
On Jun 2, 2008, at 4:02 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
Because it can help discriminate between spam and ham addressed from
self t
I put SA on my server and have had it running for a while now (couple
months). I have been training it with ham and spam this whold time time and
am probably up to a couple hundred messages of ham and a couple thousand
messages of spam.
What I am seeing is a TON of email that is obvious spam (to
Hi Amy,
At 10:45 12-06-2008, Amy Marcott wrote:
I was told by Kintera, our email service, to email this address
regarding a problem I'm having with my spam score report. A report
Usually, it's up to your email service provider to deal with such questions.
http://spamassassin.apache.org/users.h
>Hmm, I'm on DSL, so, should I place my IP in trusted_networks?
No. Your IP address does not relay mail to you.
>For
>instance, I did have this "trusted_networks 192.168/16 71.48.160.0/20",
>however, looking at the received line of the post I initally made, my IP is
>now 71.51.96.186.
trusted_n
Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb:
On 12.06.08 18:51, Matthias Leisi wrote:
On the company mailserver, we take a very conservative approach, and
only Spamhaus SBL+XBL are used at the MTA level.
you should switch to ZEN in such case, SBL+XBL is obsolete now.
We use a local feed, so querying SB
In v310.pre, we had this:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Pyzor
...amongst many other loadplugin lines. Through trial-and-error, I've
determined that commenting out the Pyzor line (along with the pyzor
config lines in local.cf) solves the problem.
Unfortunately, I really _liked_ Pyzor,
On 12.06.08 13:45, Amy Marcott wrote:
> I was told by Kintera, our email service, to email this address regarding a
> problem I'm having with my spam score report. A report is generated with each
> test email we send to ourselves via Kintera. The report lists things that may
> trigger high spam sco
I was told by Kintera, our email service, to email this address
regarding a problem I'm having with my spam score report. A report is
generated with each test email we send to ourselves via Kintera. The
report lists things that may trigger high spam scores. I was given the
report below fo
I was told by Kintera, our email service, to email this address regarding a
problem I'm having with my spam score report. A report is generated with each
test email we send to ourselves via Kintera. The report lists things that may
trigger high spam scores. I was given the report below for an email
I suspect Net::DNS cannot parse "nameserver localhost". Try
nameserver 127.0.0.1
instead,
--j.
Vinogratzky writes:
> I thought so, too. But
> ---8<---
> ; <<>> DiG 9.3.4 <<>> 3.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org ANY
> ;; global options: printcmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY
I thought so, too. But
---8<---
; <<>> DiG 9.3.4 <<>> 3.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org ANY
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 8343
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 5
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;3.2.3.updates.spa
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
How do you use spamassassin, from procmail/maildrop? milter?
I call it from Postfix thusly:
--
main.cf:
--
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/spamassassin
--
/etc/postfix/spamassass
On 12.06.08 16:22, Chris St. Pierre wrote:
> About a year ago, I started this thread:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200708.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
>
> I kind of forgot about the issue, but it's cropping up again; we're
> now on 3.2.4, and still having the probl
For what it's worth, this appears to be happening on _every_ message
that comes through. In other words, no spam at all is getting tagged,
and we're running on RBLs, etc., alone. So I'd appreciate any and all
suggestions. :)
Thanks.
Chris St. Pierre
Unix Systems Administrator
Nebraska Wesleyan
> On Thursday 12 June 2008 2:16 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > you should put at least your MX backups into trusted_networks AND
> > internal_networks, if there are any. You may put other servers, not under
> > your control, to trusted_networks, if you trust them not to originate spam.
> >
>
On 12.06.08 10:25, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> >You may put other servers, not under your control, to trusted_networks,
> >if you trust them not to originate spam.
> ^
>
> Matus, I believe that assertion is i
On 12.06.08 18:51, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> On the company mailserver, we take a very conservative approach, and
> only Spamhaus SBL+XBL are used at the MTA level.
you should switch to ZEN in such case, SBL+XBL is obsolete now.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.
On 12.06.08 23:15, nitin joshi wrote:
> I am using spamassassin as a spam filtering tool with
> sendmail. Spamassassin is filtering at MDA level with procmail. No other
> filtering or scaning tool attached with sendmail or at any other level.
maybe the header come from sender or s
On Friday 13 June 2008 12:39:39 you wrote:
> can't you tell spamassassin to only check incoming mails, not outgoing
> mails?
SA doesnt have "outgoing" and "incomming". thats your MTA.
Besides SA does already HAVE a rule for mails sent from yourself.
ALL_TRUSTED should trigger on those mails.
On Friday 13 June 2008 12:00:18 Rob van der Linde wrote:
> I know that mail sent from localhost is ok, because I created the PHP
> scripts myself.
Well... no. If SA says they're not ok, then they're not ok.
You can "fix" your MTA to not pass outgoing mails to SA,
but neither can you "fix" SA,
I've noticed just today that PHP has not been sending any mail at all
anymore if spamassassin is enabled. (I'm running it on Ubuntu Hardy,
through citadel, but everything is working fine there). I had a look
at /var/log/mail.log and it appears to be blocking the emails, marking
them as spam.
Is th
31 matches
Mail list logo
