On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, tonjg wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > Check the permissions on the /var/lib/spamassassin/bayes directory and
> > contents.
> > Make sure the mimedefang user can read and write to the directory as
> > well as all of the files.
>
> since I edited the permissions (my previous
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> Check the permissions on the /var/lib/spamassassin/bayes directory and
> contents.
> Make sure the mimedefang user can read and write to the directory as
> well as all of the files.
since I edited the permissions (my previous post) the original error has
gone but is now
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 23:50 +, Francis Russell wrote:
> dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>
> > If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
> > (SPF_NOT_PASS alone should do it), and a blacklist of domains that have
> > SPF records including IPs that send spam.
>
> You migh
Chris,
> > I can see now:
> > failed: Can't locate object method "close_pipe_fh" via package
> > "Mail::SpamAssassin::Reporter" at /etc/mail/spamassassin/DCC.pm
> > You are running an old version of the DCC.pm plugin with a new version
> > of SpamAssassin. Remove your old copy from /etc/mail
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 17:06 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Chris,
>
> > > > spamd[30068]: util: failed to spawn a process
> > > > "/usr/local/bin/dccproc, -H, -x, 0, -a, 204.15.81.110":
> > > > Insecure dependency in exec while running setgid
> > > > at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.1/Mail/SpamAss
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
> (SPF_NOT_PASS alone should do it), and a blacklist of domains that have
> SPF records including IPs that send spam.
You might also want to read this:
http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/F
Ned Slider wrote:
> It's never going to happen. We can't even get half the banks to
> implement measures like SPF or DKIM, and they are getting the hell
> phished out of them and are exactly the type of sector you'd expect to
> be using such measures to prevent spoofing and making it easier for
>
Hi,
> I don't see it as a perceptual problem. What rules are to lower the score of
> ham. SA really needs more white rules. White rules can compensate for the
> sins of black rules and enhances overall accuracy especially when protecting
> ham take priority over blocking spam.
Were you thinking o
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Jonas wrote:
But for us as well as bowie, the sought rules are hitting significantly
less mails than they used to.
Makes me wonder if the spammers have put some work into identifying the
spamtraps used to feed the sought rules generator? Have the sought
maintainers noticed
> I understand the problem with the stats program and FP/FN, but the last
> time I looked at the stats for sought (which was admittedly quite a while
> ago), a couple of the rules were showing in my top 20 spam rules.
> Now I have to go all the way down to 111 to find the first one.
I would like t
From: "Marc Perkel"
Sent: Wednesday, 2010/February/03 09:20
jdow wrote:
From: "Alex"
Sent: Monday, 2010/February/01 11:24
That's a bad thing for anyone, not just hospitals, but I doubt if the
system that sends regular email is in any way connected to the
internal patient system.
Not knowin
jdow wrote:
From: "Alex"
Sent: Monday, 2010/February/01 11:24
That's a bad thing for anyone, not just hospitals, but I doubt if the
system that sends regular email is in any way connected to the
internal patient system.
Not knowing what their system is I have to make sure that email sent
f
From: "Alex"
Sent: Monday, 2010/February/01 11:24
That's a bad thing for anyone, not just hospitals, but I doubt if the
system that sends regular email is in any way connected to the
internal patient system.
Not knowing what their system is I have to make sure that email sent from
hospitals g
From: "Marc Perkel"
Sent: Tuesday, 2010/February/02 14:48
Mark Martinec wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:53:35 Marc Perkel wrote:
If you are worried about losing good email add this rule to your
ruleset:
header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('HOSTKARMA-lastexternal',
'127.0.0
On 02/03/2010 09:18 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
The corpus-quality for that masscheck doesn't look too bad though:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100201-r905213-n/T_JM_SOUGHT_1/detail?s_corpus=1#corpus
That day was fine. The weekly masscheck however had only 50k spam.
Warren
Chris,
> > > spamd[30068]: util: failed to spawn a process
> > > "/usr/local/bin/dccproc, -H, -x, 0, -a, 204.15.81.110":
> > > Insecure dependency in exec while running setgid
> > > at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Util.pm line 1533.
> > > at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.1/Ma
On 2/3/2010 5:16 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
A basic problem with running SpamAssassin at a MTA level
(like through a milter) is that a message may have multiple
recipients, yet spam checking is typically done only once
per message, not once per recipient. This rules out
possibilities like having p
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 18:21, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 02/02/2010 12:07 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
>>
>> That is quite different from our masscheck stats. Today's results at
>> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100201/%2FJM_SOUGHT look like this:
>>
>> SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME
>>
> > On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
> >> relationship to detecting spam?
> On 2/2/10 5:38 PM, "dar...@chaosreigns.com" wrote:
> > SPF is entirely about spam.
On 02.02.10 18:05, Daniel McDonald wrote:
> Sorry, but SPF is entirely abo
Mario,
> i would like to set my required score dynamically.
>
> Right now, my /etc/mimedefang-filter calls:
> [...]
> However, i can find no way to set the required score
> spam_assassin_check should use (e.g. for its report)
>
> I read that i can overwrite the config with
> spam_assassin_check(
Hello List,
i would like to set my required score dynamically.
Right now, my /etc/mimedefang-filter calls:
my($hits, $req, $names, $report) = spam_assassin_check();
sub spam_assassin_check (;$) {
my($status) = spam_assassin_status(@_);
return undef if (!defined($status));
my $hi
21 matches
Mail list logo
