On 10/14/2010 8:26 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2:59 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing list
rejected my initial submission.
I'm pretty sure it's not just me but there is some constant spammin
On 10/14/2010 5:30 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
any work has been done on the bug?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
According to the bug, quite obviously, no one has been working on it.
Until your patch just today. Thanks!
Yes, I decided this was a logic is
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, wvpTV wrote:
We've seen a recent explosion in spam that SpamAssassin does not flag,
it seems mainly because the FROM (sender) field is being used for
subject content, eg: VIAGRA, PORN etc etc
Can anyone tell me how far off a sta
We have a couple of mail servers running SpamAssassin. One is stock
CentOS5 and therefore running SA 3.2.4. The other is a test platform
running SA 3.3.1 (installed from rpmforge in case that matters). Both
have the latest sa-update configurations for their respective
versions.
On both hosts, w
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 12:30 -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> On 2010/03/16 5:03 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >> In order to properly open a feature request, I'd like to get a better
> >> idea where you're going with this. It seems to me that a new exit code
> >> from sa-update would be more app
CPAN search is my friend... it's in libwww-perl!
You get too soon old and too late smart... :-)
rnd
_
From: Diffenderfer, Randy
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:24 PM
To: 'users@spamassassin.apache.org'
Subject: which LWP::UserAgent for 3.3.1 install
Looking at the 3.3.1 install, it wants (well, would like...) module
LWP::UserAgent.
OK ... off to CPAN, but no simple LWP-UserAgent, only a bunch of
LWP-UserAgent-whatever. So, which one do I want?
TIA,
rnd
Jared Hall-2 wrote:
>
> Use the From:name check. Example:
>
> headerBAD_NAMEFrom:name =~ /(Penny
> Auctions|\bFree\b|\bCialis\b|\bViagra)/i
> score BAD_NAME5.0
>
>
Thanks Jared
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Checking-FROM-FIELD-for
On 2010/03/16 5:03 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
How is this messing you up? This should not affect any of your other
channels. The only effect is that the sought rules don't get updated.
I'm not sure how everyone else is doing it, but my script checks for
updates using --channelfile, then r
Use the From:name check. Example:
headerBAD_NAMEFrom:name =~ /(Penny
Auctions|\bFree\b|\bCialis\b|\bViagra)/i
score BAD_NAME5.0
Use caution, as always. Mind your regexes. For instance, in this
example, heaven forbid a
user named Joe Viagraola sends an Email, bla
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, wvpTV wrote:
We've seen a recent explosion in spam that SpamAssassin does not flag,
it seems mainly because the FROM (sender) field is being used for
subject content, eg: VIAGRA, PORN etc etc
Can anyone tell me how far off a standard filter update might be to
carry out c
On 2:59 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing list
rejected my initial submission.
I'm pretty sure it's not just me but there is some constant spamming
from dot info domains. Perhaps for the past 2 months or so.
Often they send hundreds per day a
We've seen a recent explosion in spam that SpamAssassin does not flag, it
seems mainly because the FROM (sender) field is being used for subject
content, eg: VIAGRA, PORN etc etc
Can anyone tell me how far off a standard filter update might be to carry
out checks on the FROM field?
Thanks.
--
13 matches
Mail list logo
