Never mind.. was running SA as wrong user id.
report[23714]: reporter: razor2 report failed: No such file or directory report
requires authentication at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Razor2.pm
line 178. at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Razor2.pm line 326.
Running SA 3.2.5
razord-admin -create
razord-admin -registe
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 22:53 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> > From: Karsten Bräckelmann
> > More precisely: If that rule-set still would be generated, it would be a
> > sub-set of bl.spamcop.net.
>
> It is a ranked chunk of the top 200 spammers, not just a subset. It
> could even make sense t
> -Original Message-
> From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 8:48 PM
>
> ...omissis...
>
> > > Not strictly a list of the top 200, but isn't this covered by the
> more
> > > extensive RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET dnsbl test?
> >
> > As you alre
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 16:18 +0100, Matt wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Err, Matt, just had a very brief look at the code and the resulting
> > metas, but -- how is that different? :)
>
> Blame that comment on lack of sleep - I read that as limiting the depth
> of the tree and not being
OK Guys,
I understood ! Thanks for this help.
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:48 PM
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 02:39 -0700, Marcelo Galeti wrote:
>> > Hello Guys,
>>
James Butler wrote:
> System: Fedora 10, Spamassassin 3.2.5, Perl 5.10.0
>
> The following error is preceded by log entry:
> spamc[PID]: skipped message, greater than max message size (512000 bytes)
>
> Error: spamc[PID]: oops! message_dump of 8192 returned different
> (there are as many of those e
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 11:25 -0700, Marcelo Galeti wrote:
> Yeh ! You are right ! I was justing thinking in way SareRules say this rule
> is Active but you are right ! This RSCV rule cover the same thing.
Given that this rule-set is deprecated since *before* 3.0 already, here
goes some advice
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:43 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> > From: Karsten Bräckelmann
> > Not strictly a list of the top 200, but isn't this covered by the more
> > extensive RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET dnsbl test?
>
> As you already pointed out, they are not exactly the same.
More precisely: I
Giampaolo,
You read my mind :))
Greatings and take care !
Marcelo
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:48 PM
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 02:39 -0700, Marcelo Galeti wrote:
>
Yeh ! You are right ! I was justing thinking in way SareRules say this rule
is Active but you are right ! This RSCV rule cover the same thing.
Thank you very much !!!
;) Marcelo
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 02:39 -0700, Marcelo Galeti wrote:
>> Hello Guys,
>
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Would constructing it using a binary (or n-ary, with small upper bound
of n) tree speed the compilation up?
Err, Matt, just had a very brief look at the code and the resulting
metas, but -- how is that different? :)
The result is exactly the tree struc
> stefan novak wrote:
> > I've updatet the file with the headers:
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/m6e31520c
On 12.04.09 10:30, Bill Landry wrote:
> Scored high here:
>
> Content analysis details: (32.9 points, 10.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> -
> -Original Message-
> From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:48 PM
>
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 02:39 -0700, Marcelo Galeti wrote:
> > Hello Guys,
>
> Wow, a Nabble user with a real name. :)
>
> > Do you know if are there something like t
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 02:39 -0700, Marcelo Galeti wrote:
> Hello Guys,
Wow, a Nabble user with a real name. :)
> Do you know if are there something like the old 'Top200 SpamCop Relays'
> 70_sc_top200 ?
Not strictly a list of the top 200, but isn't this covered by the more
extensive RCVD_IN_BL_S
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 21:58 +0100, Matt wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > Wonder why that is -- due to the excessively long metas? The sub-rules'
> > REs are quite trivial.
> >
> > Would constructing it using a binary (or n-ary, with small upper bound
> > of n) tree speed the compilation
Hello Guys,
Do you know if are there something like the old 'Top200 SpamCop Relays'
70_sc_top200 ?
wget http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sc_top200.cf
Thank you very much to all,
Marcelo Galeti
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Something-like-the-old-%2270_sc_top200
17 matches
Mail list logo