Hi
I am trying to install/configure SpamAssassin and make test filed with the
following reasons. I was running this as root. and would like to run spamd
as non-root user (Tspamd with /opt/oso/Tspamd as its home directory). I have
postfix installed and want to integrate with Postfix. I am new t
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 22:31 +, Gary Forrest wrote:
>
> All working now :)
> Many thanks for the responses.
Oh, come on, Gary -- you could at least tell us what the issue was, and
maybe how you found out and fixed it. After all, the rule does indeed
look ok. ;)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...
Hi All
All working now :)
Many thanks for the responses.
Regards
Gary
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
Hi All
Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same
email address ?
We want to black list email from
sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to one off our staff.
Chip M. wrote:
> *** Rob McEwen: ***
> Would you be willing to provide your /24 list, for even a short period,
> in some sort of plain text format (maybe one CIDR per line?), so those
> of us with good hand-classified corpi could try out your data?
>
> Most of my users are in a shared hosting envir
This snowshoe stuff has been a PITA for a while.
For most of my users (particularly the Geeks), it's not even on their
radar.
For others, (inluding my most complex domain), 80% of their FNs are
from snowshoers.
As well as the usual battery of anti-spam tests,
I'm using a layered/meta approach of
Dennis Hardy wrote:
>Do people generally have good non-FP experience with BRBL? I am
>thinking of bumping up the score, but I get so much spam per day
>it is hard to check for FPs with it enabled.
Dennis, it depends on what sort of ham your people receive.
For evaluation purposes, I've been runni
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
> Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same
> email address ?
Quick point – if you have short-circuiting turned on, then they may well
be…
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | Which do you consider was the stronger swimmer,
aprilcottage.co.u
John M. Harmon wrote:
In order to comply with security requirements, I need to re-locate the
site-specific configuration
data for spamassassin from /root/etc/mail/spamassassin to
/usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin.
I'm not sure how to do this without breaking it. It currently works with a
post
In order to comply with security requirements, I need to re-locate the
site-specific configuration
data for spamassassin from /root/etc/mail/spamassassin to
/usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin.
I'm not sure how to do this without breaking it. It currently works with a
postfix MTA under
MailScanner
On Feb 4, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Andre wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 03.02.09 21:39, Andre wrote:
spamc is never called from Exim in this case, so the --ssl switch
can't be
used. At least that is my understanding (maybe mis-understanding?)
of the
situation.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
We want to black list email from sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net
to one off our staff. ( we have requested removal from there list many
times, to no effect )
Perhaps an MTA hard-fail rule would be better for this purpose.
--
John Har
On Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:14:58 AM, Andre Andre wrote:
> Does that require changes to spamassassin or is it using multi already
> (3.2.5 used here)?
> My stats report those:
> URIBL_JP_SURBL
> URIBL_AB_SURBL
> URIBL_SC_SURBL
> URIBL_OB_SURBL
> URIBL_WS_SURBL
> No report of multi in there
A grep -r -i of your rules directories is the way to go.
SA 3.2.5 uses multi.
Unless you've put in your own custom rules you should be OK.
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal | Networks Engineer
Herefordshire Council | Deputy Chief Executive's Office | I.C.T.
Services Division
Thorn Office Centre, Rot
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Jeff Chan wrote:
> For historical reasons, the SURBL public nameservers were serving
> individual lists ab, sc, ob and ws in addition to multi. However
> these individual lists have all been deprecated in favor of multi for
> several years since multi contains all lists. Tr
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 03.02.09 21:39, Andre wrote:
> > spamc is never called from Exim in this case, so the --ssl switch can't be
> > used. At least that is my understanding (maybe mis-understanding?) of the
> > situation.
>
> Doesn't exim even have the option fo
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:34 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > The meta rule has a single underscore prefix, probably to denote local
> > rules. Though there are better prefixes for that, IMHO. ;)
> >
> > Anyway, a single underscore isn't a meta-match sub-rule and works a
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
> >
> > So we have the following custom rule
> >
> > describe _GMF_CNET01 blacklist
> > sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to caro...@netnorth.co.uk
> > header __GMF_CNET01_FROM From =~
> > /silic...@newsletters\.silicon\.cne
On Wed, February 4, 2009 16:17, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
> Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the
> same email address ?
> We want to black list email from
> sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to
in local.cf or user_prefs
unwhitelist_from sili...@newsletters.si
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:06 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
>
> > > meta _GMF_CNET01 ( __GMF_CNET01_FROM && __GMF_CNET01_TO
> > > ) score _GMF_CNET01 200
>
> > The problem is the way you named the rule.
> >
> > From th
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:06 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
> > meta _GMF_CNET01 ( __GMF_CNET01_FROM && __GMF_CNET01_TO )
> > score _GMF_CNET01 200
> The problem is the way you named the rule.
>
> From the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page:
>
>
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:17 +, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
>
> Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same email
> address ?
Nope. Custom rules are unaffected.
> Running, spamassassin -D --lint, shows no errors / warnings
Running it through spamassassin -D, do
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
>
> So we have the following custom rule
>
> describe _GMF_CNET01 blacklist
> sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to caro...@netnorth.co.uk
> header __GMF_CNET01_FROM From =~
> /silic...@newsletters\.silicon\.cneteu\.net/i
> header __GMF_
Rasmus Haslund wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if this is a stupid question but here is how my SA currently
> makes output:
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2,11 required=6,00
> tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0,00,BAYES_00=-0,11,RCVD_IN_JMF_W=-2,00
> version=3.2.5
>
> I saw others who has output in headers like thi
Hi All
Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same email
address ?
We want to black list email from sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to
one off our staff.
( we have requested removal from there list many times, to no effect )
So we have the following custom r
Hi all,
Sorry if this is a stupid question but here is how my SA currently makes
output:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2,11 required=6,00
tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0,00,BAYES_00=-0,11,RCVD_IN_JMF_W=-2,00 version=3.2.5
I saw others who has output in headers like this:
X-Spam-Summary:
0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RE
On 2/4/2009 2:42 PM, McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 12:23 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Updated: FreeMail.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/FreeMail.cf
Can we assume that adding the FreeMail.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
channel to sa-update will keep that in sync?
Can't r
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 12:23 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> Updated: FreeMail.cf
>
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/FreeMail.cf
Can we assume that adding the FreeMail.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
channel to sa-update will keep that in sync?
> Works with:
>
> http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.pm
For historical reasons, the SURBL public nameservers were serving
individual lists ab, sc, ob and ws in addition to multi. However
these individual lists have all been deprecated in favor of multi for
several years since multi contains all lists. Traffic for the
individual lists is relatively ver
Updated: FreeMail.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/FreeMail.cf
Look at rules file thoroughly - do NOT use blindly!
(loadplugin path)
Works with:
http://sa.hege.li/FreeMail.pm
pls report errors/additions to the list
> > mouss wrote:
> > > stunnel may be more appropriate, and easier to setup and control than
> > > ssh, in this particular case.
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Jason Haar wrote:
> > What's wrong with spamc's native "--ssl" mode - plus a simple ACL at the
> > spamd end to limit who can reach it? Chances are
30 matches
Mail list logo
