Linda Walsh wrote:
> To be clear about what is being white listed, would it
> hurt if the 'brief report for the AWL', instead of :
> -1.3 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
>
> it had
> -1.3 AWLAWL: 'From: 518501.com' addr is in auto white-list
>
> So I
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Linda Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>> I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
>>> as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
>>
>> Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
>> This is probably the
On Wed, May 27, 2009 23:43, decoder wrote:
> I am planning a new release, but my time schedule is though.
super, i posted a new thread with subject "FuzzyOcr wordlist"
new words to be added for latest spams
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
On Wed, May 27, 2009 21:48, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AutoWhitelist
> At face value, this seems very counter productive.
read the docs one more time
> If I get spam from 1000 senders, they all end up in my
> AWL???
yes
> WTF?
not here please
> AWL should only
On Wed, 27 May 2009 21:19:58 -0500
René Berber wrote:
> RW wrote:
>
> > AFAIK though it isn't possible to place a cap on the FuzzyOCR
> > score. I don't want to, but I detune it purely to reduce the
> > likelyhood of something hitting my discard threshold by OCR alone.
>
> Isn't that done by s
Linda Walsh wrote:
> We go
> around redefining words to suit reality and catch the heat when the
> rest of the world doesn't understand our meaning:
Please repeat after me:
AWL is not an auto whitelist
AWL is not an auto whitelist
AWL is not an auto whitelist
It's one of those funny jokes, like
RW wrote:
> AFAIK though it isn't possible to place a cap on the FuzzyOCR score. I
> don't want to, but I detune it purely to reduce the likelyhood of
> something hitting my discard threshold by OCR alone.
Isn't that done by setting focr_add_score to 0.0? The total score in
this case should be
On Wed, 27 May 2009 19:10:57 -0500
René Berber wrote:
> You should mention that scores and sensitivity are configurable (even
> individually for each word / term; I use low scores for short words,
> for instance). And all is documented on the fuzzy perl library used.
AFAIK though it isn't possi
Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Linda Walsh
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:48:43 -0700
Bowie Bailey wrote: >
At face value, this seems very counter productive.
You still aren't understanding the wiki or the AWL scoring or what AWL
is trying to do.
Ah, but it only
decoder wrote:
[snip]
> See http://fuzzyocr.own-hero.net/wiki/Downloads for more details.
>
> Although I still can't invest that much time into the project at this
> point, there are some features I'd like to add though in the near
> future, such as regex support. I also considered rewriting the
Charles Gregory a écrit :
> Hello!
>
> Quick question: Does Spamassassin's "RCVD" tests also check headers
> labelled "X-Originating-IP"?
yes.
>
> In particular, I received the below message from hotmail with hits on
> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB. Neither of the
> hotmail IP's
Hello all,
after quite some time, I've decided to release another version of
FuzzyOcr. This version is only a tag from SVN revision 135 (+ a patch
provided recently which fixes something in one of the sql utilities)
that has been used quite some time with SA 3.2.x and is included in some
maj
Karsten Bräckelmann a écrit :
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:21 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
>> On Mittwoch 27 Mai 2009 mouss wrote:
>>> and 4454 is a one line message, but the signature causes the hit.
>
> The fact that mailing-list footer is forced onto the message with no
> newline causes it. And
Hi Matus,
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:48:25PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 25.05.09 17:12, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
> > Is it possible to generate a rule that when it applies gives the message
> > that specific score? If so, how do I do it?
>
> every rule gives a specific score when it ap
Hello!
Quick question: Does Spamassassin's "RCVD" tests also check headers
labelled "X-Originating-IP"?
In particular, I received the below message from hotmail with hits
on RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB. Neither of the
hotmail IP's is found in *any* RBL listed at mailabuse.org'
LuKreme wrote:
On 24-May-2009, at 18:40, Henrik K wrote:
I don't know why users are so afraid of words like SVN. You have to
look at the project, not version numbers.
I don't have FuzzyOCR installed, and it's not because of the SVN.
First, I don't think my server can take the processing hit
alex k wrote:
If only FuzzyOCR's developer would read that ;)
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be interested in his project anymore.
Maybe you could take care of this orphaned code.
Dear Alex,
I am reading exactly everything you write ;)
The code is not orphaned, but also not being ext
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:49 +, Henry Kwan wrote:
> Just noticed that my AWL is up to 83MB. Not sure if it should be that large
> so
Well, it keeps track of all sender addresses it sees, including the
forged ones which usually hit your site once only...
> I ran check_whitelist and it removed
On 27-May-2009, at 13:48, Linda Walsh wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood
out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your
AWL. This is pro
On 27-May-2009, at 13:49, Henry Kwan wrote:
Just noticed that my AWL is up to 83MB. Not sure if it should be
that large so
I ran check_whitelist and it removed the single entries but did not
compact the
file. I then checked the SA site and it said to use sa-awlUtil but
I can't find
this ut
From: Linda Walsh
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:48:43 -0700
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>> I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
>> as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
>
> Any sender who has sent mail to
Linda Walsh wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstoo
Linda Walsh wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA.
Just noticed that my AWL is up to 83MB. Not sure if it should be that large so
I ran check_whitelist and it removed the single entries but did not compact the
file. I then checked the SA site and it said to use sa-awlUtil but I can't find
this utility on my system. Was it included in the standar
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA. R
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA. Read the wiki.
http:
Dear Bowie,
I am not experienced in Linux server I did not now about it. I run the
command ( yum update ) now it is running. Spamassassin is updated
automatically and lots of other stuff.
Thanks alot
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> hateSpam wrote:
>> Thanks for reply i used (yum list installed '
hateSpam wrote:
Thanks for reply i used (yum list installed 'spamassassin*') command and I
got
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Installed Packages
spamassassin.x86_64 3.1.9-1.el5installed
Does it mean it has installed via rpm?
Exactly.
It should update
Thanks for reply i used (yum list installed 'spamassassin*') command and I
got
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Installed Packages
spamassassin.x86_64 3.1.9-1.el5installed
Does it mean it has installed via rpm?
Thanks
hateSpam
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> hateSpam
Ned Slider wrote:
hateSpam wrote:
Thanks for reply.
Sorry, I should say that before. I am using CentOS Linux 5. For
mailing
delivery we are using Postfix version 2.3.3 and Procmail.
In that case you need to update your CentOS system as CentOS is using
the latest SpamAssassin.
'yum upd
hateSpam wrote:
Thanks for reply.
Sorry, I should say that before. I am using CentOS Linux 5. For mailing
delivery we are using Postfix version 2.3.3 and Procmail.
In that case you need to update your CentOS system as CentOS is using
the latest SpamAssassin.
'yum update' should do th
I don't know because somebody else has already done it. he is not here and
unfortunately no documentation how he installed it.
Regards
hateSpame
Rick Macdougall-2 wrote:
>
> hateSpam wrote:
>> Thanks for reply.
>> Sorry, I should say that before. I am using CentOS Linux 5. For mailing
>> de
hateSpam wrote:
I haven't installed it. it was already installed. Do you mean I should delete
the current spamassassin and reinstall new version?
To upgrade SpamAssassin, you normally just install the new version on
top of the old one. But if you install with different settings or a
diffe
hateSpam wrote:
Thanks for reply.
Sorry, I should say that before. I am using CentOS Linux 5. For mailing
delivery we are using Postfix version 2.3.3 and Procmail.
Yes, but the most important question still remains.
How did you originally install SpamAssassin ?
Regards,
Rick
I haven't installed it. it was already installed. Do you mean I should delete
the current spamassassin and reinstall new version?
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> hateSpam wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> I have spamassassin 3.1.9 I want to upgraded it with new version 3.2.5
>> I will appreciate if any one can tel
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 07:44 -0700, hateSpam wrote:
Running on...
[ ] Redhat linux version 6.0
[ ] Minix
[ ] OpenVMS
[ ] Sun/OS 2.0
[X] Timex Sinclair ZX81
[ ] Windows NT 3.02B
[ ] Something else?
Installed using...
[ ] tarball install
[ ] CPAN
[ ] RPM
[ ] deb
[ ]
Thanks for reply.
Sorry, I should say that before. I am using CentOS Linux 5. For mailing
delivery we are using Postfix version 2.3.3 and Procmail.
McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 07:44 -0700, hateSpam wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> I have spamassassin 3.1.9
>
> Running on...
>
hateSpam wrote:
Dear All,
I have spamassassin 3.1.9 I want to upgraded it with new version 3.2.5
I will appreciate if any one can tell me how can I upgrade it? Where should
i put new version files and which command should I run?
I looked at upgrade documentation but I didn't understand what shou
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 07:44 -0700, hateSpam wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have spamassassin 3.1.9
Running on...
[] Redhat linux version 6.0
[] Minix
[] OpenVMS
[] Sun/OS 2.0
[] Timex Sinclair ZX81
[] Windows NT 3.02B
[] Something else?
Installed using...
[] tarball install
[] CPAN
[] RPM
[]
Dear All,
I have spamassassin 3.1.9 I want to upgraded it with new version 3.2.5
I will appreciate if any one can tell me how can I upgrade it? Where should
i put new version files and which command should I run?
I looked at upgrade documentation but I didn't understand what should id do.
Thanks
On 5/27/2009 11:00 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 6:20:13 PM, Jason Haar wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Better still, the tinyurl-esque services should vet the URLs people
submit against SURBL...
They actually do. When I was trying to test Jonas URLredirect plugin, it
was actuall
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:21 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Mittwoch 27 Mai 2009 mouss wrote:
> > and 4454 is a one line message, but the signature causes the hit.
The fact that mailing-list footer is forced onto the message with no
newline causes it. And the second hardly counts as human gene
On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 6:20:13 PM, Jason Haar wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
>> Better still, the tinyurl-esque services should vet the URLs people
>> submit against SURBL...
>>
> They actually do. When I was trying to test Jonas URLredirect plugin, it
> was actually hard to get tinyurl.com to gen
On Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 1:39:11 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> Yes. it immediately exposes a backchannel from the spam to the spammer,
> thereby enabling a number of interesting security holes.
> --j.
Yes, it's impractical for some of the reasons Rob mentions, and
it would also allow any of the f
Yes. it immediately exposes a backchannel from the spam to the spammer,
thereby enabling a number of interesting security holes.
--j.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 05:25, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Jason Haar wrote:
>> Why can't SURBL be expanded to support
>> full URLs instead of just the hostname? That wa
On Mittwoch 27 Mai 2009 mouss wrote:
> and 4454 is a one line message, but the signature causes the hit.
And my messages are just one-liners without .sig that should never hit
this rule at all.
I don't have other examples in original format, but just a few days ago
got a FP report where this ru
47 matches
Mail list logo
