Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> --
> char
> *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
> main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0;
> }}}
Hi Karsten,
This is just o
Thank you all experts for your valuable ideas/opinions on this topic.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29189632.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> Bottom line: Keep your max size limit sane. No kidding.
Thank you very much for your valuable comment/recommendation on this. That
makes sense.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/spamc-client-always-returning-0-0-tp29173280p29189631.html
S
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
Does UBuntu use 'iptables' firewall? Throw it in there, and
forget even the wasted initial SMTP connect
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
Does UBuntu use 'iptables' firewall? Throw it in there, and
forget even the wasted initial SMTP connections.
- C
On 16/07/10 20:07, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
They advertise romantic encounters with people born prior to 50 years
ago, small increment auxions, ability to borrow money using house as
collateral, and
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 21:50 +0300, Emin Akbulut wrote:
> I knew what you mentioned, I mean do they use same "engine",
> "algorithm", you name it...
>
That's a developer question, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't. The
Linux spamd executable is just a Perl script with the usual executable
script's
Block? In your MTA. Reject them based on the connecting IP.
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 14:07 -0500, Igor Chudov wrote:
> I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
> SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
> I am being hit pretty badly and feel annoyed.
>
> How can I write a rule
PERFECT! THANKS!
You're right. I use mimedefang too.
I capitalized ALL_TRUSTED and NO_RELAYS and put them in sa-mimedefang.cf and
now everything is scanned.
Thanks again :)
-Original Message-
From: Benny Pedersen [mailto:m...@junc.org]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 1:45 PM
To: users@spa
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
They advertise romantic encounters with people born prior to 50 years
ago, small increment auxions, ability to borrow money using house as
collateral, and other scams. Examples are here:
http:/
I knew what you mentioned, I mean do they use same "engine", "algorithm",
you name it... I think that If both use same Perl code then
the only remaining diffrence is User_Prefs like things...
BTW, I want to thank you all who spent time and answered us here,
passionately : ) I felt I'm not alone
On fre 16 jul 2010 20:31:21 CEST, Cliff Hayes wrote
How can I override this? Or is that a bad idea for other reasons?
score all_trusted 0.01
score no_relays 0.01
but as i can see you use mimedefang with have independice networking
setup for what not to scan
if its sent to mimedefang its s
Hello,
Our webmail server is on the same server as sendmail and spamassassin.
I would like to filter outbound webmail but can't because the most recent
versions of spamassassin have 127.0.0.1 trusted by default.
How can I override this? Or is that a bad idea for other reasons?
Thanks in advanc
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 18:07 +0300, Emin Akbulut wrote:
> I've stopped the mail server MTA during I was testing, so spamd
> has checked only one message at same time.
> It looks totaly random : )
>
>
> Is the only difference between spamassassin.exe & spamd.exe
> their very own User_Prefs confi
On 16.7.2010 4:04, Peter Lowish wrote:
> I am wondering if someone has a rule to deal with the current spam being
> sent with just a small png attachment the name of which changes
>
>
>
> There is no text in the email, just the attachment – the subject line is
> always different
>
>
>
head
I've stopped the mail server MTA during I was testing, so spamd
has checked only one message at same time.
It looks totaly random : )
Is the only difference between spamassassin.exe & spamd.exe
their very own User_Prefs config files?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:11 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Now if I have to GUESS on insufficient data, I would suspect that the
> 'port' of spamd to Windows(?) does not properly tidy up its children when
> finished. The fact that it crashes certainly points in this direction.
> May I presume tha
In my first post, SA addition to message is included.
I am including all header lines this time; I noticed SA has added first
lines in one result,
and has added lines somewhere in the middle in other result. :P
I've restarted spamd after test # 1.
TEST1.TXT: It takes less than 2 seconds
-
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Gregory
>
> Now if I have to GUESS on insufficient data, I would suspect that the 'port'
> of
> spamd to Windows(?) does not properly tidy up its children when finished.
> The fact that it crashes certainly points in this direction.
> May I presume that
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Emin Akbulut wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=24.4 required=6.3 tests=HT
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Gnanam wrote:
Daniel Lemke wrote:
Gnanam wrote:
"The maximum message size is 256 MB."
So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested
with SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
Reaso
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 03:40 -0700, Gnanam wrote:
> Daniel Lemke wrote:
> > > "The maximum message size is 256 MB."
> > >
> > > So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
> > > SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
> >
> > You need to scan mails that are gr
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 04:18 -0700, Gnanam wrote:
>
> Daniel Lemke wrote:
> >
> > I think we live in some sort of parallel universes ;)
> >
> > Beside several other reasons why it would be totally insane sending an
> > email of that size, it's nothing you need SpamAssassin to check for
> > becaus
Daniel Lemke wrote:
>
> I think we live in some sort of parallel universes ;)
>
> Beside several other reasons why it would be totally insane sending an
> email of that size, it's nothing you need SpamAssassin to check for
> because it's definitely no spam. If you ever get a spam message of tha
Gnanam wrote:
>
>
> Daniel Lemke wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gnanam wrote:
>>>
>>> "The maximum message size is 256 MB."
>>>
>>> So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
>>> SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You need to scan mails that are
Daniel Lemke wrote:
>
>
> Gnanam wrote:
>>
>> "The maximum message size is 256 MB."
>>
>> So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
>> SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
>>
>>
>
> You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
>
Reason I'
El 13/07/10 17:22, Giampaolo Tomassoni escribió:
I don't think that's going to help - it's not going to tell us why
it's blacklisted.
Also I suspect those headers aren't added by SA alone. AFAIK
BLACKLISTED isn't added by SA like that - blacklist rule should show up
in tests=[], which is empty.
Gnanam wrote:
>
> "The maximum message size is 256 MB."
>
> So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
> SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
>
>
You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble
Martin Gregorie-2 wrote:
>
> Its a summary result: '.' means not spam. SA replaces '.' with 'Y' if it
> is spam. The number is the score truncated to an integer.
Thanks for that update.
I've another question with "spamc". The spamc option "-s max_size,
--max-size=max_size" in man spamc says:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:39 -0700, Gnanam wrote:
> What does ". 2" mean in the 7th line above?
>
Its a summary result: '.' means not spam. SA replaces '.' with 'Y' if it
is spam. The number is the score truncated to an integer.
Martin
Emin Akbulut wrote:
>
> I've used SA/spamd.exe for a while because it calculates very high scores
> on
> spams.
> -I thought-
>
> Then spams have appeared in people's inboxes and I needed to examine.
>
>
>
> I've used another batch file to log spamd spam scores.
> The commandline is:
>
> C:
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> Check your logs.
>
> spamd likely logged the failure. And btw, spamc also logs in some cases,
> like refused connection attempts to spamd. You will find your previous
> attempts without spamd running being logged.
For my email message "spamc -c < /root/mailmess
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> Check your logs.
>
> spamd likely logged the failure. And btw, spamc also logs in some cases,
> like refused connection attempts to spamd. You will find your previous
> attempts without spamd running being logged.
Thanks. That solved my problem. It has thrown
I've used SA/spamd.exe for a while because it calculates very high scores on
spams.
-I thought-
Then spams have appeared in people's inboxes and I needed to examine.
I've used another batch file to log spamd spam scores.
The commandline is:
C:\NET\SpamAssassinWin32-EX\winspamc.exe
< C:\NET\
34 matches
Mail list logo
