On 26 Jan 2018, at 17:47 (-0500), Computer Bob wrote:
My understanding is that spamassassin is configured for razor and
uribl.
amavisd-new is configured to call spamassassin so is spamassassin not
doing the sub calls ?
Not exactly. The command-line 'spamassassin' script is written in Perl
an
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
What is this ***UNCHECKED*** goo in the subjects? Has someone played
with the list manager configuration?
That was probably a side effect of the ClamAV problem, that has been
fixed.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~j
What is this ***UNCHECKED*** goo in the subjects? Has someone played
with the list manager configuration?
--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet, fetch the TXT record for the domain
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote:
Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
M1-2.dettenwanger.inter-control.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: ***
On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 16:26 -0600, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
> Just a hunch, but did you make sure to add the "$self->register..."
> line inside the "sub new {" block with all the others in
> HeaderEval.pm?
>
Yep, sure did, thanks for that. All is well now.
>
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Chris wrote:
>
My understanding is that spamassassin is configured for razor and uribl.
amavisd-new is configured to call spamassassin so is spamassassin not
doing the sub calls ?
I see no docs on configuring razor directly in amavis.
If you could tell me what to look for it would be appreciated.
On 1/26/18
Ok, I will look now, what am I looking for ?
On 1/26/18 4:20 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote:
Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
M1-2.dettenwanger.inter-control.com
X-
I did not think so, but will check another day.
15 hours is enough for today.
On 1/26/18 4:20 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote:
Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
M1-2.
Just a hunch, but did you make sure to add the "$self->register..."
line inside the "sub new {" block with all the others in HeaderEval.pm?
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Chris wrote:
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 10:05 -0500, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
This is my current solution for a problem that has been disc
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote:
Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
M1-2.dettenwanger.inter-control.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=23.0 re
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 10:05 -0500, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> This is my current solution for a problem that has been discussed
> many times in this list.
> I wrote it last year, and it serves me well. Feel free to use it, if
> you find it useful.
>
> This part goes into your local.cf:
>
> heade
On 01/26/18 19:06, Dave Wreski wrote:
> Hi, while learning an mbox on a recent 3.4.2 svn:
>
> # sa-learn --spam --progress --mbox junk-012618
> 28% [==
> ] 5.53 msgs/sec 00m44s LEFTUse of
> un
On 01/26/2018 02:39 PM, b...@inter-control.com wrote:
Greetings to all,
I have an issue with my setup somehow and it may be in amavis-new, most
spam gets detected and delt with, some gets through and the scoring
seems odd.
The headers that get through are usually along the lines of:
X-Spam-F
Greetings to all,
I have an issue with my setup somehow and it may be in amavis-new, most
spam gets detected and delt with, some gets through and the scoring
seems odd.
The headers that get through are usually along the lines of:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Statu
On 01/26/2018 01:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hi All,
OK I've been doing some sociological analysis of the spam I've been
getting on my honeypot, Bays feeder email boxes (dangerous, I know)
and I've come up with what I think MIGHT be a way to fight spam
that I wanted to run up the flagpole.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:49:07 -0800
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[snip]
> Do you think this approach might work?
Not any better than Bayes. All your "spam archetype" examples are
already easy to stop; we whack them all handily with Bayes. The
annoying ones are more like:
Subject: hi
Subject: 'sup
Hi All,
OK I've been doing some sociological analysis of the spam I've been
getting on my honeypot, Bays feeder email boxes (dangerous, I know)
and I've come up with what I think MIGHT be a way to fight spam
that I wanted to run up the flagpole.
We all know ONE basic thing about spam:
Spammer
*TEST message per moderator.*
Hi, while learning an mbox on a recent 3.4.2 svn:
# sa-learn --spam --progress --mbox junk-012618
28% [==
]
5.53 msgs/sec 00m44s LEFTUse of uninitialized value in lc at
/usr/share/perl5/vend
19 matches
Mail list logo
