On 01/12/2011 20:11, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
So it's entirely possible to have a rule that hits a very small percentage
of spam with a very large score.
Thank you to all who replied.
It is much clearer now.
regards
Tom
Working great! lol
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:59:33 -0600, Sergio wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I always reply to the list, this time it flips on me.
>>
>
> try reply now, just testing :-)
>
If you open them with a plain text editor the headers are there.
However here is the text of one of the headers they are mostly all the same.
They do get a score sorry for my poor choice of wording.
No catch all delivery
and thank you for your replies I truly appreciate it.
The first is the hea
On 12/1/11 10:06 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
does not make sense so
hire a unix programmer to help you understand.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Best Mobile Solutions Product of 2011
* Best Intrusion Prevention Product
How very subversive...
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 12:58 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> There is some question among spamassassin developers* on whether or not
> it is acceptable to increase the network load of spamassassin, by one
> DNS query per email, for existing releases (version 3.3.x), by
On 12/1/2011 3:59 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Edward O'Rourke wrote:
Greetings - I'm at my wits end trying to fix this.
Every day, every few hours the same 3 or similar 3 messages are delivered
and are not scored.
The last time somebody reported behavior like that, they had a
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Edward O'Rourke wrote:
Greetings - I'm at my wits end trying to fix this.
Every day, every few hours the same 3 or similar 3 messages are delivered
and are not scored.
The last time somebody reported behavior like that, they had a catch-all
address defined and the spam wa
Hi Edward,
The messages you have on your links there have no header included so I
don't think that this is helpful at all.
Ted
On 12/1/2011 3:24 PM, Edward O'Rourke wrote:
Greetings - I'm at my wits end trying to fix this.
First my setup is as follows
CentOS 5.7
cPanel WHM 11.30.5 build 2
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:59:33 -0600, Sergio wrote:
Sorry, I always reply to the list, this time it flips on me.
try reply now, just testing :-)
Sorry, I always reply to the list, this time it flips on me.
Thanks!
So, this way I can have a check on the large of the subject as a sub rule
and then check for the content, appreciated.
Regards,
Sergio
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Sergio wrote:
>
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Sergio wrote:
I want to check for specific subject size, thanks.
Let's keep the discussion on-list so others may benefit.
Larger than:
header __SUBJ_GT_100 Subject =~ /.{101}/
Smaller than or equal to:
header __SUBJ_LE_100 Subject =~ /^.{0,100}$/
Sergio
On Thu,
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Sergio wrote:
is there a way to check the size of a subject on a rule?
Do you want to know if it's larger than or smaller than some specific
size, or do you want to know about how many characters are in it?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/
Hi all,
is there a way to check the size of a subject on a rule?
Thanks in advance.
Sergio
On 12/01, Jeff Chan wrote:
> Also keep in mind that PH has a generally low score even for net
> + bayes since it doesn't hit a large portion of spam in the SA
> corpus.
No. Scores are not determined by how many spams a rule hits. Scores are
automatically generated to correctly flag as many spa
There is some question among spamassassin developers* on whether or not
it is acceptable to increase the network load of spamassassin, by one
DNS query per email, for existing releases (version 3.3.x), by adding
one DNS blacklist to the rule set via sa-update.
This Mailspike blacklist has proved u
Also keep in mind that PH has a generally low score even for net
+ bayes since it doesn't hit a large portion of spam in the SA
corpus. (In other words phishing and malware unsolicited
messages are a relatively small subset of unsolicited messages in
general.) However the unsolicited messages it
>
> It's not always just branding. It's also, giving proper attribution.
> Organisations and people should be credited appropriately for
> their contributions. It's the respectful thing to do.
> "GNU/Linux" is the best example of this IMO.
>
> At least you said "free software arena" and not "o
Felipe,
> > > "FreeBSD + Qmail + Vpopmail"
> > > *Dec 1 10:40:46 mail spamd[67490]:
> > > spamd: handle_user unable to find user: 'x...@xxx.com'*
> > A username 'x...@xxx.com' does not exist. Either you should not
> > pass the full recipient's e-mail address in the -u argument to spamc
> > but
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:01:04 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
sed -i '' -e '/INSERT INTO bayes_seen/s/INTO/IGNORE INTO/'
MySQL.pm
ALTER TABLE `bayes_seen` ENGINE = INNODB
no, that won't do anything (I use engine = innodb), what has innodb
have to do with replication collisions?
innodb is
Felipe,
> "FreeBSD + Qmail + Vpopmail"
>
> maillog:
> Dec 1 10:40:46 mail spamd[67490]:
> spamd: got connection over /var/run/spamd.socket
> *Dec 1 10:40:46 mail spamd[67490]:
> spamd: handle_user unable to find user: 'x...@xxx.com'*
> Dec 1 10:40:46 mail spamd[67490]: spamd: checking mess
On 01/12/11 08:29, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
Good morning list.
could someone possibly explain how the scoring for ph.surbl.org works?
I see the following in my spam logs
spam-1DSMgl4+-YFV.gz: TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY=1.258, URIBL_PH_SURBL=0.001]
spam-1DSMgl4+-YFV.gz: * 0.0 URIBL_PH_SURBL Contains an U
"FreeBSD + Qmail + Vpopmail"
maillog:
Dec 1 10:40:46 mail spamd[67490]: spamd: got connection over
/var/run/spamd.socket
*Dec 1 10:40:46 mail spamd[67490]: spamd: handle_user unable to find user:
'x...@xxx.com'*
Dec 1 10:40:46 mail spamd[67490]: spamd: checking message
<20E588F1C6BA4C77978581F9
Good morning list.
could someone possibly explain how the scoring for ph.surbl.org
works?
I see the following in my spam logs
spam-1DSMgl4+-YFV.gz: TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY=1.258,
URIBL_PH_SURBL=0.001]
spam-1DSMgl4+-YFV.gz: * 0.0 URIBL_PH_SURBL Co
23 matches
Mail list logo
