On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 22:40 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> Would renaming 20_sought_fraud.cf to 99_sought_fraud.cf, putting
> 20_sought_fraud.cf (from the yelp.org channel) after 72_active.cf (the
> default and assumed older SA rules) solve this problem?
No, because they are in sub-directorie
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:54 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
> > hack to bend the alphabet.
>
> It is not entirely clear to me, what exactly are you supposed to rename
On 6/10/2011 3:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the
reorder
> hack to bend the alphabet.
It
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
> hack to bend the alphabet.
It is not entirely clear to me, what ex
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
hack to bend the alphabet.
It is not entirely clear to me, what exactly are you supposed to
rename for the reorder hack?
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
hack to bend the alphabet.
It is not entirely clear to me, what exactly are you supposed to rename
for the reorder hack? You have to do it every time you sa-update?
War
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 19:32 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 6/10/11 5:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > While I do agree this is an issue -- at the very least, all third-party
> > sought channel docs should include that note -- I do not agree that this
> > is worrisome. The negative im
11.6.2011 0:41, Matthew Newton kirjoitti:
>
> I've therefore hacked together the following patch to Botnet.pm
> (0.8). It should fix the main issue that BOTNET does not do any
> lookups for IP addresses that look like IPv6 addresses. It
Hi! I really need that, but the patch did not work, ot
On 6/10/11 5:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
While I do agree this is an issue -- at the very least, all third-party
sought channel docs should include that note -- I do not agree that this
is worrisome. The negative impact basically boils down to "the channel
does not work".
so, the 'best p
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 11:19 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 7:14 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Now, the bad thing about this is that updates_spamassassin_org.cf is
> > lexically *after* sought_rules_yerp_org.cf in your rule update dir.
> > Which means the more recent rules in t
Hi,
I've noticed for a while on my home mail server that BOTNET was
scoring for every mail coming over IPv6. Having just use the
excuse of World IPv6 day to enable it on the servers here, too, I
needed to fix that or remove the test.
I've therefore hacked together the following patch to Botnet.pm
On 6/10/2011 7:14 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
You are generally correct about the numerical (actually lexical) order,
though it doesn't apply to the files you are talking about. The
mentioned 72_active and 20_sought are in different sa-update channels.
Now, the bad thing about this is that u
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:29:23 +0200, Alessandro Dentella wrote:
thanks to all of you for the great support.
super duper will test this in postfix, just a shame one need to turn
postfix into a content filter just to make it work :(
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 18:07 +0200, Jezz wrote:
> I recently upgraded SpamAssassin from 3.2.5 to 3.3.1, and I discovered that
> the JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_x rules are now included within the official ruleset,
> within the 72_active.cf file.
>
> However, as far as I can tell, these rules seem to be diffe
Hi all,
I recently upgraded SpamAssassin from 3.2.5 to 3.3.1, and I discovered that
the JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_x rules are now included within the official ruleset,
within the 72_active.cf file.
However, as far as I can tell, these rules seem to be different to the
same-named rules that are within t
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Alessandro Dentella wrote:
I see some mail are hit by FRT_SOMA rule that I see is defined as:
##{ FRT_SOMA ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags^M
body FRT_SOMA /\b(?!soma|500mg)\b/i^M
descri
On 6/10/11 8:53 AM, "Alessandro Dentella" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see some mail are hit by FRT_SOMA rule that I see is defined as:
>
> ##{ FRT_SOMA ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags
>
> ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags^M
> body FRT_SOMA / P2>\b
Hi,
I see some mail are hit by FRT_SOMA rule that I see is defined as:
##{ FRT_SOMA ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags^M
body FRT_SOMA
Benny,
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:38:25 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> > header CUSTOM_X_SPAM_FLAG X-Spam-Flag:raw =~ /\bYES\b/i
Can't work, the M::S::PerMsgStatus::check_timed calls:
$self->{msg}->delete_header('X-Spam-.*');
before invoking any checks. Moving that call further down
makes
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:38:25PM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 09/06/2011 10:26 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:08:08 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >>On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:00:09 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> >>
> >>>header CUSTOM_X_SPAM_FLAG ALL:raw =~ /\bX-Spam
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:38:25 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
header CUSTOM_X_SPAM_FLAG X-Spam-Flag:raw =~ /\bYES\b/i
nope, is headers case sensitive ?
spamassassin have case like the above, but aol changed it all
uppercase, and my rule works from spamassassin, but fails in amavis
since thi
21 matches
Mail list logo
