scanner10.re
re2c: error: line 102, column 2: Token exceeds limit
command failed! at /usr/bin/sa-compile line 288, <$fh> line 7288.
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3956 (20090323) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD3
On Mon, March 23, 2009 10:58 pm, dsh979 wrote:
>
> Thank you for your reply Matt.
>
> I did not realise that items listed on the white list or the black list
> would still be subject to the operation/analysis of the SpamAssassin
> Rules.
>
> You have asked why I have set the required score the 100
Thank you for your reply Matt.
I did not realise that items listed on the white list or the black list
would still be subject to the operation/analysis of the SpamAssassin Rules.
You have asked why I have set the required score the 100. Lengthy
explanation (sorry). I have done this to preven
> Thanks for your reply. I am adding users to the white list and the black
> list (in the SpamAssassin user preferences file) as follows:
> whitelist_from *...@whitelist1.com
whitelist_from should be used as a last resort; whitelist_from_auth and
whitelist_from_rcvd are significantly safer in
dsh979 wrote:
> Hello John
>
> Thanks for your reply. I am adding users to the white list and the black
> list (in the SpamAssassin user preferences file) as follows:
>
> blacklist_from *...@blacklist1.com
> blacklist_from *...@blacklist2.com
> blacklist_from *...@blacklist3.com
> required_score 1
Hello John
Thanks for your reply. I am adding users to the white list and the black
list (in the SpamAssassin user preferences file) as follows:
blacklist_from *...@blacklist1.com
blacklist_from *...@blacklist2.com
blacklist_from *...@blacklist3.com
required_score 100
whitelist_from *...@whitel
Chris,
> Mar 23 18:01:08 localhost spamd[3676]: dns: sendto() failed:
> Connection refused
> at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm
> line 395, line 45.
man 2 sendto
[ECONNREFUSED] The socket received an ICMP destination
unreachable message from the l
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> According to report from one of our customers it seems that this header is
> being hit by multiple rules:
>
> Received: from 217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz (217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz
> [217.112.174.194]) (TLS: TLS1.0,192bits,RSA_3DES_EDE
Randy J. Ray a écrit :
> [snip]
>
if you want a bayes filter, bogofilter is a good one. if you want a
daemon, try dspam.
if you want to fight spam, ask open questions. SA is a good filter.
Bayes isn't as perfect as you might think.
Chris wrote:
> I caused this myself I believe but I'm wondering why. I'm having issues
> getting named to work correctly in chroot configuration, it will run but
> when started reports zone files not found even though they are where I
> have them in the named.conf file.
Are they in the path listed
The whole error(s) read:
Mar 23 18:01:08 localhost spamd[3676]: dns: sendto() failed: Connection
refused
at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm line
395, line 45.
Mar 23 18:01:08 localhost spamd[3676]: plugin: eval failed: oops, no key
at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.1
From: Chris Barnes
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:14:37 -0500
Jeff Mincy wrote:
> Yow. The negative scoring bayes rules are extremely reliable when well
> trained. Ham messages are not trying to evade the filter. Defeating
> bayes with poison is mostly a myth. The random g
"" writes:
> I am looking for a few people to test my custom rules. I'm looking
> for somebody to filter through their own SA installation and then
> follow up by calling spamc to connect to my spamd setup. The reason I
> want to be second is so that all the obvious spam gets captured firs
Having gone over the FAQ and other doc-sections on the wiki, I haven't been
able to answer my questions. So here's hoping the user-community can help!
My company is currently using a home-brew solution for applying naive Bayes
filtering to data. Currently, what we're doing is basically spam fil
On 23-Mar-2009, at 10:14, Chris Barnes wrote:
But the problem remains. A simple glance at this list shows that
this happens often enough to be a fairly common problem.
Because people don't train bayes properly.
The question is: How does one fix the problem after it occurs?
Train bayes wi
At 07:46 23-03-2009, klowther wrote:
I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
uribil and surbil. I checked one list on surbil and it isn't
listed. I guess I need to know how to fix/disable this module
All,
I am looking for a few people to test my custom rules. I'm looking for
somebody to filter through their own SA installation and then follow up by
calling spamc to connect to my spamd setup. The reason I want to be second
is so that all the obvious spam gets captured first and following
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> OTOH I have a similar plot. The idea is that mail from an exact address
> that I've previously sent mail to will not be spam. My system consists
> of two parts:
>
> - the first automatically records every address I've sent mail to.
> This uses a table in a PostgreSQL dat
Running spamc from the command line and generating the full report.
The full report reports the following:
Content analysis details: (7.2 points, 6.3 required)
0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP4 TVD_RCVD_IP4
0.0 TVD_RCVD_IPTVD_RCVD_IP
2.6 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP
Hello,
According to report from one of our customers it seems that this header is
being hit by multiple rules:
Received: from 217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz (217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz
[217.112.174.194]) (TLS: TLS1.0,192bits,RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1) by
mailhub3.nextra.sk with
Jeff Mincy wrote:
Yow. The negative scoring bayes rules are extremely reliable when well
trained. Ham messages are not trying to evade the filter. Defeating
bayes with poison is mostly a myth. The random garbage might work the
first time but not the second time as long as you are training th
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:44 +0100, Ivan Savcic wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Mark Martinec
> wrote:
> > Bogdan,
> >
> >> > The test is supposed to receive a header as argument, not a body:
> >
> >> thanks for the reply. What I am trying to do is actually have access map
> >> of blackl
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:46 -0400, klowther wrote:
> I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
> Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
> uribil and surbil. I checked one list on surbil and it isn't listed. I
> guess I need to know how to fi
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:44 +0100, Ivan Savcic wrote:
> The goal is to put the regexes, which are being searched for in the
> body of the mail, out of the configuration file, to avoid clutter and
> to allow easy addition of new regexes.
>
But have you got a plot for compiling the regexes when they'
> I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
> Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
> uribil and surbil.
That's a typical symptom if your DNS provider has switched to providing a
positive response to what should be NXDOMAIN results. Best pract
I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
uribil and surbil. I checked one list on surbil and it isn't listed. I
guess I need to know how to fix/disable this module? As far as I can
tell EVERY email i
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Bogdan,
>
>> > The test is supposed to receive a header as argument, not a body:
>
>> thanks for the reply. What I am trying to do is actually have access map
>> of blacklisted email addresses or websites that are mentioned in the
>> *body* o
Bogdan,
> > The test is supposed to receive a header as argument, not a body:
> thanks for the reply. What I am trying to do is actually have access map
> of blacklisted email addresses or websites that are mentioned in the
> *body* of email, not in header.
I'm afraid you'd need to enhance the p
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:30 +0100, mouss wrote:
> McDonald, Dan a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 14:56 -0400, Bryan Lee wrote:
> >> My Spam assassin is run from /etc/mail/mimedefang-filter via the perl
> >> module.
> >
> >> When running sa-update, do I need to run anything to make sure new rule
> Hoover Chan wrote:
> >The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was
> >attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me
> >curious about the whole thing where any positive spam score is set as the
> >threshold but seeing junk mail coming in with negat
Mark Martinec wrote:
Bogdan,
I'm trying to make use of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AccessDB plugin.
This is what I have in config:
body GMAIL_IZDANJA eval:check_access_database('/etc/mail/gmail_spam.db')
describe GMAIL_IZDANJA spam from gmail.com
score GMAIL_IZDANJA 35.000
Content of /etc/mai
Bogdan,
> I'm trying to make use of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AccessDB plugin.
> This is what I have in config:
>
> body GMAIL_IZDANJA eval:check_access_database('/etc/mail/gmail_spam.db')
> describe GMAIL_IZDANJA spam from gmail.com
> score GMAIL_IZDANJA 35.000
>
> Content of /etc/mail/gmail_sp
Hi spamassassin-users,
I'm trying to make use of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AccessDB plugin.
This is what I have in config:
body GMAIL_IZDANJA eval:check_access_database('/etc/mail/gmail_spam.db')
describe GMAIL_IZDANJA spam from gmail.com
score GMAIL_IZDANJA 35.000
Content of /etc/mail/gmai
33 matches
Mail list logo
