On Wednesday 09 February 2005 12:41, Michael Parker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:35:32AM -0600, Jeff Gibson wrote:
> > Hi. I'm running spamassassin 3.0.0 on a Redhat ES 3 box. Postfix 2.1.5
> > is calling spamassassin. The server itself does user account lookups
> > though an LDAP server.
On Friday 26 November 2004 10:28 am, Jerry Bell wrote:
> This spam went through with a score of 0. I'm using 3.01 with most of the
> sare rulesets. Any ideas on how to catch these?
>
Just as a me too. I've been battling these for the last month or so with SA
3.0.1 with varied results. I run wit
On Thursday 18 November 2004 04:20 am, LOGS (Tunc Eresen) wrote:
> Is there a way of reducing or caping CPU usage spamd by issuing commands
> or making changes in config?
>
> Regards
> Tunc
If you must, nice it down to a lower priority. In your startup script add a
nice adjustment to the spamd l
I've been having a few spams slip through recently that aren't hitting some of
the SURBLs. Upon checking them using the tool at:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi
I've noticed that some of the root domains are listed, but the full exanded
domain may not be. For instance one spam ha
On Wednesday 10 November 2004 13:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am looking for some help finding a proxy/load balancer that will work
> with spamc->group of spamd machines
>
> Does anyone have any tips on what to use?
>
> I tried balance (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) and pen
> (http://sia
On Monday 11 October 2004 12:43 pm, Justin Mason wrote:
> Jeremy Rumpf writes:
> > I've seen a few messages recently that contained the header
> >
> > X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: PoHgCaAr
> >
> > My questions are, are they trying to simulate som
I've seen a few messages recently that contained the header
X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: PoHgCaAr
My questions are, are they trying to simulate something like hash cash? Does
anyone know of a MUA that inserts/utilizes this header?
I would like to insert a local rule to score on this
On Friday 01 October 2004 04:10 pm, Carnegie, Martin wrote:
> >So they're saying they can't be RFC compliant? The only thing I see
>
> that
>
> >might need to be fixed is: FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA
> >
> >Other then that, it seems _they_ have some work to do.
> >
> >--Chris
>
> Well they said that hopeful
