I'm running a patched qmailrocks-type setup: qmail + qmail-scanner 1.25 +
ClamAV.
I'm having a problem where at times about half of our messages are getting
0.0 scores from SA, even ones that I know should be triggering rules. I even
wrote a really stupid custom rule (test for the presence of th
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Gerald Turner wrote:
- There are other cases when you don't want to reject (mail to
ab...@example.com, ... etc).
That's the other problem I'm trying to solve (don't reject mail sent to
these "quasi-spamtrap" addresses, simply discard) - I can see how to do
it now with cus
mouss writes:
> Gerald Turner a écrit :
>> Hello, I have been using SpamAssassin integrated with Postfix via
>> spampd SMTP proxy and I have the following header_checks file:
>>
>> /^X-Spam-Level: \*{8,}/ DISCARD Spam score 8+
>> /^X-Spam-Level: \*{4,}/ REJECT Spam score 4+
>>
>> There are ca
On Fri, January 9, 2009 22:44, mouss wrote:
> # spf/dkim/dk
> whitelist_from_auth payme...@paypal.com
this one does not exists
whitelist_auth
def_whitelist_auth
unwhitelist_auth
does
see perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf and corsponding plugin docs
> you should also make sure your trusted_n
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, mouss wrote:
Anyway, I just tried (with a tagged address) and my SA didn't say
anything about the message. so what's the problem?
The problem is not in SA. Apparently he's using a defunct DNSBL that's
overriding the SA score. SA scored the message negative 40-mumble, which
Gerald Turner a écrit :
> Hello, I have been using SpamAssassin integrated with Postfix via spampd
> SMTP proxy and I have the following header_checks file:
>
> /^X-Spam-Level: \*{8,}/ DISCARD Spam score 8+
> /^X-Spam-Level: \*{4,}/ REJECT Spam score 4+
>
> There are cases where I'd rather DI
Your ideas and suggestions worked!
I just wanted to say thanks for everyone who replied, I hope I am incorrect in
the following statement but I am going to say it anyway-I am guessing many
users on this thread are like me-we post questions ( I have posted 2 over the
last 5 years) , but rarely
Please use a mailer that obeys the "Reply-To:" header. mo...@ml.* is
reserved for mailing list mail (i.e. mail coming from list servers).
ndwor...@ix.netcom.com a écrit :
> It's not spam, it's a reply to a mailing list sign up form. The
> customer signs up and then receives a free drink at our
Hi! Mark,
Many thanks for your reply.
I also have similar WARN error
Jan 9 09:20:02 smtpext2 amavis[20636]: (20636-16) _WARN: Malformed
UTF-8 character (unexpected continuation byte 0xba, with no preceding
start byte) in pattern match (m//) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:37:37PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> > It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny
>> > fraction of mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit
>> > at all (or is it that those checks don't contain an
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:37:37PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny
> > fraction of
> > mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit at all (or is it
> > that those
> > checks don't contain any network checks?).
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
I zeroed the scores for all of these rules about a year ago. They were
only hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas stoppe
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
I zeroed the scores for all of these rules about a year ago. They were
only hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas stopped being useful a long time ago (IMO of
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to databases that don't be
At 22:01 08-01-2009, Evan Platt wrote:
Ok, unless someone here knows, I'll ask in an Eudora group... I
turned Header mode to Terse. Only shows the From, To, and subject
headers. But also trims the heck out of the message.
If there's a few pages of quoted text, it shows ...snip and for
som
Please do not top-post.
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:48 -0800, fbpc wrote:
> Look, I'm not sending spam, I'm sending REPLY coupons to customers. If you
> don't believe me, go to my website www.fbpc.com. I believe the PORN is
> triggered because the full name of the bar is the Fat Black Pussycat, whi
Matt Kettler wrote on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:57:17 -0500:
> No it's not. The "mode" is really a mask, and is sometimes used in the
> creation of directories.
well, it has worked all the years for me on those setups that use dbm
storage. What directories should be created there? We only have db, ind
On 09.01.09 03:58, dave_c00 wrote:
> I am now trying to edit my .qmail- file to filter it and send it on
> but am having no luck in getting it working. The original file looked like
> this:
>
> #mailbox
> ./users//Maildir/
>
> I have tried just the line:
>
> | spamc ./users//Maildir/
this won't
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:08:49 -0500:
>
>
>> bayes_file_mode 0777
>>
>
> well, 0666 is definitely sufficient ;-)
>
No it's not. The "mode" is really a mask, and is sometimes used in the
creation of directories.
Files will be created at 666 when 077
dave_c00 wrote:
> Martin Gregorie-2 wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 03:58 -0800, dave_c00 wrote:
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> I am now trying to edit my .qmail- file to filter it and send
it on
>>> but am having no luck in getting it working. The original file looked
>>> like
>>> this:
>>>
>> Obvious que
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:21 +0300, Sergey Kovalev wrote:
> mouss wrote:
> >> On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >>> I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
> >>> value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
> >>> not give negative s
Well if I test spamc using the following command:
spamc < /sample-spam.txt
It prints put the edited email following by the original on the screen.
Does that mean that spamc is working correctly?
Dave
Martin Gregorie-2 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 03:58 -0800, dave_c00 wrote:
>> Thanks,
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 03:58 -0800, dave_c00 wrote:
Thanks,
I am now trying to edit my .qmail- file to filter it and send it on
but am having no luck in getting it working. The original file looked like
this:
Obvious question: did you also install spamd and is it running
Evan Platt wrote on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:01:50 -0800:
> If there's a few pages of quoted text, it shows ...snip and for
> some reason, removes odd things, like in this case, the Nabble tag. Any ideas?
It's a signature. I have configured my reader to grey them out, so they don't
distract, but
Matt Kettler wrote on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:08:49 -0500:
> bayes_file_mode 0777
well, 0666 is definitely sufficient ;-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 03:58 -0800, dave_c00 wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I am now trying to edit my .qmail- file to filter it and send it on
> but am having no luck in getting it working. The original file looked like
> this:
>
Obvious question: did you also install spamd and is it running as a
daemon?
Thanks,
I am now trying to edit my .qmail- file to filter it and send it on
but am having no luck in getting it working. The original file looked like
this:
#mailbox
./users//Maildir/
I have tried just the line:
| spamc ./users//Maildir/
and various other variations with no joy.
Anyone know
Mark Martinec wrote:
Our log file contains many:
amavis[19738]: (19738-05) _WARN: Malformed UTF-8 character (unexpected
continuation byte 0x8e, with no preceding start byte) in pattern match
(m//) at
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/70_sare_specific_cf_sare_sa-update_dostech_n
et/200605280300.cf
dave_c00 wrote:
I have set up Spamassassin using apt-get (thanks for that) and have
configured it to insert SPAM into the subject when it is run. I
have tested it to see if it's working by running the command:
spamassassin -D < /dirpath/sample-spam.txt
and it shows me the email in a
mouss wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
I have
# Disable Habeas
met
Hi Ruben,
I have set up Spamassassin using apt-get (thanks for that) and have
configured it to insert SPAM into the subject when it is run. I
have tested it to see if it's working by running the command:
spamassassin -D < /dirpath/sample-spam.txt
and it shows me the email in a before
Craig wrote:
Here are the links to 3 sample messages-
http://pastebin.com/d59f95b6d
http://pastebin.com/d17f12f4
http://pastebin.com/m46ce2877
I can only see the last message now.
Probably you may try to detect blank lines in the body or blank spaces
in html.
In Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin:
32 matches
Mail list logo
