Karsten Bräckelmann rudersport.de> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 10:50 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> > >
> > > For more info and the script's link see
> > > http://markmail.org/message/qqsm35q5bqpbb3in
> >
> > (For the lazy, the original hack is at
> > http://www.deepnet.cx/~kdeugau/spamtool
Just noticed that my AWL is up to 83MB. Not sure if it should be that large so
I ran check_whitelist and it removed the single entries but did not compact the
file. I then checked the SA site and it said to use sa-awlUtil but I can't find
this utility on my system. Was it included in the standar
James Wilkinson aprilcottage.co.uk> writes:
> Henry Kwan wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the script but I don't think I can use it as Exchange2K7
> > has dropped IMAP support for public folders. Or least this blog post
> > from MSFT seems to indicate:
> >
> &g
Martin.Hepworth solidstatelogic.com> writes:
>
> Henry
>
> Make sure the spam/ham folders are imap folders. Make sure they drag the
messages into that folder and not
> email them as it'll muck up the headers otherwise.
>
> Then grab a perl script (heck here's one below) to get messages from th
Hi,
Currently running SA 3.25 via MailScanner frontend (CentOS5 box in the DMZ) to
Exchange2K7. Have setup two public folders for users to dump spam/ham in.
What's the usual way of moving these messages back to SA for learning? The
volume isn't that high so if there was a way to convert .MSG t
Vidar Tyldum Hansen tyldum.com> writes:
> I'm just doing a rough summary of my process on 2007:
> - Use LDAP to check the recipients against Exchange/AD
> (remember the proxyAddress attribute)
> - On the SA-machine I use Postfix and header_checks after the message
> is scanned by amavi
Hi,
Have been running SA on CentOS for a few years now and everything has been
working great. But the powers that be want to move to Exchange so I am trying
to plan a SA frontend that feeds the Exchange server.
As I was thinking over how SA works now and how it might work in the my future
setup
Theo Van Dinter apache.org> writes:
> >
> > spamd[2492]: razor2: razor2 check failed: razor2: razor2 had unknown error
> > during check at
> > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Razor2.pm line 211,
> > line 1. at
> > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/R
Rick Macdougall ummm-beer.com> writes:
>
> man spamc
>
> -s max_size, --max-size=max_size
Ah, I didn't realize there was a built in limiter. I tried searching the wiki
but I guess my search terms weren't right.
So it's just a matter of throwing this:
-s 256000
into /etc/mail/spama
Hi,
Is there a way to have SA skip messages over a certain size?
I tried using this procmailrc recipe:
:0fw
* < 256000
| /usr/bin/spamc
But it resulted in this error:
spamd[2492]: razor2: razor2 check failed: razor2: razor2 had unknown error
during check at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/
Hi,
I'm currently running SA 3.23 on a CentOS 4.5 with sendmail-8.13 box and
it's happily filtered spam for a few years now. But we are now looking into
acquiring an Exchange server so I was wondering if I can switch from local
delivery of mail to relaying it downstream to the Exchange server.
Justin Mason wrote:
>
>
> hi -- what spamd command line are you using?
> Are you running with "-u root" or similar?
>
>
Hi Justin,
The options for spamd are:
# Set default spamd configuration.
SPAMDOPTIONS="-d -c -m8 -H"
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Pr
Hi,
Am trying to upgrade to the new 3.2.2 and everything looked OK during
make/test/install but during operation, I'm getting these errors:
Jul 25 13:46:53 boxen spamd[25710]: dcc: check failed: util: setuid 0 to 501
failed! at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Util.pm line
1343.
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
> Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
> The POPAuth plugin for 3.1 works with 3.2 as long as you configure at
> least one trusted_network manually.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/POPAuthPlugin
>
Hi Daryl,
Good to know. I only had internal_networks set and not
Hi,
I've been running the POPAuth plugin on 3.18 with good results but noticed that
3.20 seems to break it. I tried searching the wiki and didn't see an update to
the plugin. Is one needed or did I fubar something during 3.18 to 3.20 upgrade?
Am currently running CentOS 4.4 with Perl 5.85. Wi
Doc Schneider wrote:
>
>
> Not sure how you're using SA but I commented out every reference to
> CIALIS2 and just committed 1.00.11 so should be available within the hour.
>
> Also running CentOS 4.4 you know you can upgrade to perl 5.8.8 by doing
> a 'yum --enablerepo=centosplus update perl'
Doc Schneider wrote:
>
> I just now committed more fixes for 70_sare_obfu.cf, obfu0 and obfu1.
> These should be available within the hour.
>
> Please folks if you have a problem with a rule set from SARE please let
> us know what rule it is and what rule set it is in.
>
Hi Doc,
I just updat
Loren Wilton earthlink.net> writes:
> Perhaps a third answer would be to get the latest versions of the rules
> files?
> Doc fixed those errors about 5-6 days ago.
Hmmm... Thanks for the heads up. I guess sare_adult.cf got updated after my
last RulesDuJour run. But it seems that sare_obfu.cf
Just updated to 3.20 this week and because everything seem to be working fine, I
didn't notice my log files getting bloated (up to 8GB!) by errors like this:
Malformed UTF-8 character (unexpected non-continuation byte 0x00, immediately
after start byte 0xd
2) in pattern match (m//) at /etc/mail/s
AbbaComm.Net abbacomm.net> writes:
> I noticed a large difference in scoring "behavior" between the versions
> 3.1.8 and 3.2.0 myself.
>
> Yet, after training bayes and then after a few more days of bayes auto
> learn, things seem to have "mostly" cleared up.
Ok, I'll check again after a few da
Hi,
Am running 3.18 on a vanilla CentOS 4 box and tried to upgrade to 3.20. The
make/make test/make install cycle went fine but I noticed that the scoring is
slightly different between the two version. I sent myself an email and here's
how they scored:
3.18:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.4 re
Matt Kettler verizon.net> writes:
> In this case, the past average for the sender was approximately 7.7
> (spam), this message came in at 11.5 (also spam), so the AWL split the
> difference and took off 1.9 points to make it 9.6 (still spam). That's
> 100% normal.
>
> See also:
>
> http://wiki.
John D. Hardin impsec.org> writes:
> erm. Are you sure you're running spam*D* from procmail? That's not
> correct. Either you run spamd as root as a system service and run
> spam*C* (the client) from procmail, or you run spamassassin from
> procmail and don't run spamd at all...
Hi,
Sorry, I w
Hi,
I was checking on some rule changes that I made to my SA box and noticed that I
had misconfigured my /etc/procmailrc by not including "DROPPRIVS=yes" so spamd
was running as root. I included "DROPPRIVS=yes" and restarted spamd but then I
noticed some razor2 errors popping up:
Dec 11 11:52:4
Theo Van Dinter apache.org> writes:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:28:38PM +0000, Henry Kwan wrote:
> > Is there a way to change the scoring for WHITELIST_FROM?
>
> If there were such a rule, yes. whitelist_from and whitelist_from_rcvd share
> USER_IN_WHITELIST.
>
Hi,
Is there a way to change the scoring for WHITELIST_FROM?
I tried to stick this in local.cf:
score WHITELIST_FROM -10.0
But got this error when I linted:
[12804] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule WHITELIST_FROM
Thanks.
Henry Kwan designmedia.com> writes:
> I can't seem to get this rule to hit.
>
> I have this in my local.cf
>
> whitelist_from_spf * designmedia.com
>
> But I never see the rule in X-Spam-Status. SPF checking seems
> to be working since SPF_HELO_PASS &
Kelson speed.net> writes:
>
> Henry Kwan wrote:
> > Is there a way to conditionally whitelist with SPF? That is, I want all
> > addresses from a certain domain to be whitelisted only if it passes SPF.
>
> whitelist_from_spf does exactly what you need.
>
> I beli
Kelson speed.net> writes:
>
> Henry Kwan wrote:
> > Is there a way to conditionally whitelist with SPF? That is, I want all
> > addresses from a certain domain to be whitelisted only if it passes SPF.
>
> whitelist_from_spf does exactly what you need.
>
> I b
Hi,
Is there a way to conditionally whitelist with SPF? That is, I want all
addresses from a certain domain to be whitelisted only if it passes SPF.
Or is there a way to do much the same with another mechanism besides SPF?
Thanks.
Ramprasad netcore.co.in> writes:
>
> spamassassin -D < file 2>&1 | grep -i spf
>
> check the output
>
> which MTA do you use ? Your MTA must insert an X-Envelope-From: header
> ( or similar )
>
> Thanks
> Ram
>
Hi,
After some more banging my head against the wall, I discovered that SPF ch
Ramprasad netcore.co.in> writes:
>
> spamassassin -D < file 2>&1 | grep -i spf
>
> check the output
>
> which MTA do you use ? Your MTA must insert an X-Envelope-From: header
> ( or similar )
>
> Thanks
> Ram
>
>
Hi.
I'm using sendmail so I see that I have to modify sendmail.cf by addin
Am finally getting around to making SPF records for our domains so naturally
I was fiddling with SA to see SPF-checking was enabled. Running 3.17 with
Mail-SPF-Query-1.999.1 installed. During "make test", it seemed to pass all
36 tests in "t/spf...ok".
But when I do a debu
Henry Kwan designmedia.com> writes:
> Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
> ---
> t/dcc.t41 25.00% 2
> t/dnsbl.t 234 17.39% 2 9-11
>
Hi,
Running SA 3.1.1 on CentOS 4.3. It's been running fine with Razor and DCC. I
noticed that SA 3.1.3 is out and went to download & compile. But when I do a
"make test", I get the follow errors with network tests enabled:
t/dcc...Not found: dcc report = spam reported
Theo Van Dinter kluge.net> writes:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 10:46:16PM +0000, Henry Kwan wrote:
> > t/spf...Not found: helo_pass = SPF_HELO_PASS
> > I checked and v3.01's spf test passed and I don't think I changed anything
>
ailed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
t/spf...FAILED tests 1-2
Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00% okay
I checked and v3.01's spf test passed and I don't think I changed anything so
what is 3.02 looking for that's new?
Thanks.
--Henry Kwan
Theo Van Dinter kluge.net> writes:
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:42:09AM -0800, Henry Kwan wrote:
> > [root beans Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.1]# spamassassin --lint
> > config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: num_check_received 5
> > lint: 1 issues detecte
Hi.
Just upgraded from 2.64 to 3.01 and everything seems to working fine except
that --lint gives me one error:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.1]# spamassassin --lint
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: num_check_received 5
lint: 1 issues detected. please rerun with de
the tip.
I looked on the wiki and in the readme file for spamd but didn't see it there.
--Henry Kwan
P.S. On my other machine, I run some other procmail recipes and DROPPRIVs
already was buried in one of those scripts which was why it worked on that
machine.
/usr/bin/spamd -d -c -a -m5 -H
Machine 2 (new install):
15886 1 0 14:21 ?00:00:03 /usr/bin/spamd -d -c -a -m5 -H
They both invoke spamd from /etc/procmailrc:
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
Anybody run into this issue before?
Thanks.
--Henry Kwan
Hi. A friend of mine runs a website which allows users to email each other
using a form but the email that gets spit out triggers a few of SA's rules.
The main culprit seems to be MIME_HEADER_CTYPE_ONLY along with a few others
so the total score is around 6-ish, which is just enough to kick it
42 matches
Mail list logo
