> Sorry this is off-topic.
>
> From amavisd-new RELEASE_NOTES:
> "- in passed and quarantined mail a header field X-Spam-Status now shows
> score as an explicit sum of SA score and a by-recipient score_sender
> boost (when the boost is nonzero); the X-Spam-Score header field still
> shows a sum o
>
> > Is that a score SA is generating, or do I need to redirect this to the
> > amavisd-new list?
>
> That's an amavis log entry, so you'd have to ask them.
OK, will do. Thanks Theo.
-Aaron
Hello list, I'm trying to run amavislogsumm against my mail logs, and some of
the scores are listed with a +10 at the end, which breaks the script. For
example:
May 23 10:17:22 216.186.73.25 amavis[7301]: (07301-01-9) SPAM-TAG,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yes, score=6.13+10
ta
> Ah, that's it. According to file(1) the thing ended up in UTF-8. That's a
> side effect of my spreadsheet addiction, I was using OpenOffice Calc (on
> Linux) to edit the file. I found a program that will do the conversion to
> ASCII, so this should be pretty easy to fix once I get that built.
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Sounds like you've got something other than spaces/tabs on that line (ie:
> unprintable escape codes), or the file was created on a windows machine
> with windows end-of-line format but is being read by a *nix machine.
Ah, that's it. Accor
> Using include completely redundant at the local.cf level, as SA
> automatically parses /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf. Rather than use
> custom_scores.txt, just use custom_scores.cf and put it alongside local.cf.
That's what I tried first, and got the same errors. So I thought that maybe I
was su
Hi all,
I'm using SA 3.0.4, and I wanted to keep my score modifications in a separate
file from the rest of my configuration. I removed my score changes from
local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
include custom_scores.txt in local.cf. Now SA will no longer
> Im not matt, but running a very similar setup which works
> very well so i thought i would comment also. Im running a
> single sitewide database.
> All mail is processed under my spamd user.
OK, that's basically what I'm doing too.
>
> I rarely train manually as well.
> NOTE: to oper
> Erm, that really shouldn't affect the bayes autolearner..
> perhaps you are
> thinking of the AWL? I don't run the AWL for this very reason.
>
Oh yeah. I was thinking of the AWL. NM.
> The problem is this requires some customization. This can't
> be a default setup
> of SA as the "catch
Hi Matt, I'm interested in how your setup compares to mine. I also find
Bayes very useful, but I haven't gotten it to work as well as what
you've described.
>
> Interesting.. For me, BAYES_99 is right between SURBL and
> URIBL in terms of
> hits. (And has 98.91% of URIBL's total hits) I find i
> Seems to me like setting up a firewall or network logger should make it
pretty
> easy to see what is sending out inordinate amounts of traffic on port 25.
Or
> you could just block port 25 outgoing as a matter of policy and force
people
> to go out through the university mail servers. No one
r rules yet, much easier than writing custom rules.
Bayes hasn't given any false positives that I'm aware of in the last year,
despite the theoretical skew that ought to be introduced by using everyone's
Spam and only my Ham. I cannot tell you why, but it works and it works
well.
Aaron Grewell
Network Administrator
University of Washington Bothell
> >have
> >there been problems doing this?
>
> RDJ will not restart the daemon or even keep changed rulesets
> if the lint returns an error. So, running it via a cron job is safe.
>
It depends on how you're running SA. If you're using amavisd and you
specify a restart script, make sure it re
I use Thunderbird to download the messages from Exchange via IMAP. I create
local folders (making sure to set Thunderbird for MBOX format) and then copy
to the local folders, one for Spam and one for Ham. Then I go into the
profile, grab the mbox files, and upload to the server for import. This
> Quoting wolfgang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Apparently, downgrading Net::DNS to 0.49 seems to fix this problem.
> > Can anyone else comment on this?
>
> Doing just that worked for me here.
>
I had to do the same. 0.5x didn't work at all. I didn't see anything about
it in the Net-DNS Bug Lis
> I highly doubt a MS product would take advantage of results
> from another product. That's a very un-Microsoft thing to do.
> Usualy if MS produces a product in a market, they want you to
> use their solution exclusively.
>
> >Does anyone have any real exposure to IMF especially with
> int
If you're using Exchange/Outlook, just use a public folder. Give the
users write-only access and let them drag and drop it in. Works great.
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 08:44 -0500, Jason Gauthier wrote:
> Neat! I was just thinking about how to do that myself.
> But, I use exchange, so I'm not sure how
> Excellent. I applaud you for being a user who is really
> willing to try to help themselves (along with other users who
> do the same)
The hard part was knowing what the problem was. Once I figured out it was
the AWL, the rest wasn't so tough. I think I shot myself in the foot,
actually. I
Nevermind. I found it in the list archives.
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Grewell
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:03 PM
> To: Aaron Grewell; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Understanding the AWL (was Upgrade to 3.0.1 results
> in false positiv
nd how it works. Why
doesn't it like my address? Also, why does it like me so much less under
3.0.1 than it did under 2.64?
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Grewell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 1:55 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache
I've been using SA 2.6x to block spam at our site for some time. With the
release of 3.0.1 I decided to upgrade. Unfortunately, once the upgrade was
complete I found that my test e-mails were marked as spam. I also received
several false positives from end-users as well. I could understand some
21 matches
Mail list logo
