Hello René and anyone else who has run SA on Windows under Cygwin,
I've been dabbling a little with this, having not used Cygwin
beforehand, and I think I have grasped the basic operational principles
of installing/building modules and SA, but it appears it may turn out to
be a waste of time
On Sun, June 28, 2009 05:38, Cory Hawkless wrote:
> I agree, wouldn't it be easier to uniformly feed all of these type of URL's
> though the already existing SA filters. As Jason suggested maybe by
> collapsing whitespaces?
lets redefine how a url is in the first place ?
www localhost localdomai
I agree, wouldn't it be easier to uniformly feed all of these type of URL's
though the already existing SA filters. As Jason suggested maybe by
collapsing whitespaces?
Sounds like the obvious solution to me? Any problems with this? If not how
can it be done?
-Original Message-
From: Jaso
Ahh, I have played with regexbuddy but when copy and pasting the SA rules in it
does strange things that are inconsistent with the result i get from SA, These
recent shopxx rules have been good examples but I cant get regexbuddy to
reproduce the expected results?
Has anyone used regexbuddy befo
On Sun, June 28, 2009 01:57, Jason Haar wrote:
> All this talk about trying to catch urls that contain spaces/etc got me
> thinking: why isn't this a standard SA feature? i.e if SA sees
> "www(whitespace|comma|period)-combo(therest)", then rewrite it as the
> url and process.
spammers need to rew
All this talk about trying to catch urls that contain spaces/etc got me
thinking: why isn't this a standard SA feature? i.e if SA sees
"www(whitespace|comma|period)-combo(therest)", then rewrite it as the
url and process.
That way you get the whole force of SURBLs/etc onto it? I'm assuming all
the
RobertH wrote:
> i was reading at
>
> http://www.karan.org/blog/
>
> specifically
>
> http://www.karan.org/blog/index.php/2009/06/15/gpg-signed-spam
>
> that he recv'd a "gpg signed spam email"
>
> ive never heard of that before yet i havent thought much about it or studied
> it...
>
> Q: is this u
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Jeremy Morton wrote:
Why are you bothering with that? It seems unnecessarily complex. Here's my
amended rule:
/\bwww\s?\W?\s?\w{3,6}\d{2,6}s?\W?\s?(?:c\s?o\s?m|n\s?e\s?t|o\s?r\s?g)\b/i
That would match hy11com, which may not be recognized by the mark as a
URI they
On Sat, June 27, 2009 16:02, RobertH wrote:
> just trying to get up on the curve now.
it all turns downto do you trust the sender ?, whether you verify this with gpg
or not is not the point
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Konfidi
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::OpenPGP
both can use gpg as a verify on
i was reading at
http://www.karan.org/blog/
specifically
http://www.karan.org/blog/index.php/2009/06/15/gpg-signed-spam
that he recv'd a "gpg signed spam email"
ive never heard of that before yet i havent thought much about it or studied
it...
Q: is this unheard of, or common?
near as i can
On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 16:56 +0930, Cory Hawkless wrote:
> Been doing some reading on RegEx and even coming from a programming
> background it is a bit intimidating, my problem is I haven’t been able
> to find a good source of information on exactly what\how SpamAssassin
> matches the RegEx rules wh
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:56:33 +0930
"Cory Hawkless" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Been doing some reading on RegEx and even coming from a programming
> background it is a bit intimidating, my problem is I haven't been
> able to find a good source of information on exactly what\how
> SpamAssassin ma
On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 10:59 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 6/27/2009 10:55 AM, Arvid Picciani wrote:
> > Michael Grant wrote:
> >> Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
> >> thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
> >> list in years.
> >>
Why are you bothering with that? It seems unnecessarily complex.
Here's my amended rule:
/\bwww\s?\W?\s?\w{3,6}\d{2,6}s?\W?\s?(?:c\s?o\s?m|n\s?e\s?t|o\s?r\s?g)\b/i
Best regards,
Jeremy Morton (Jez)
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Pawe�~B T�~Ycza wrote:
Dnia 2009-06-23, wto o godzin
On 6/27/2009 10:55 AM, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam rel
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam related mailing list?
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
I have to say I have issues with your definition of legit mail. Many
people do send mail to other people out of the blue for legit reasons
other than
On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 16:56 +0930, Cory Hawkless wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Been doing some reading on RegEx and even coming from a programming
> background it is a bit intimidating, my problem is I haven’t been able
> to find a good source of information on exactly what\how SpamAssassin
> matche
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 21:06 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> >> > See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
> >> The recipient wants the e-mail. DUH.
> > That's not my definition at all
>
> The very reason for my posting. You need not repeat
Hi all,
Been doing some reading on RegEx and even coming from a programming
background it is a bit intimidating, my problem is I haven't been able to
find a good source of information on exactly what\how SpamAssassin matches
the RegEx rules when scanning and what variant of RegEx is being used?
20 matches
Mail list logo
