On Friday 09 March 2007 17:44, lucmonc wrote:
> Thanks John for help, but Goldmine access the mail server with POP3 not
> IMAP. Messages are then stored in the Goldmine own sql database.
> Therefore your solution can't be used in our system.
Our sales force use Goldmine and (assuming it hasn't cor
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 23:53, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Btw, the following warnings (in v320) seem excessive, a null return path
> (aka envelope sender) is normal and constitute few percent of all mail:
>
> message: envelope_sender_header '' is not an FQDN - ignoring
> at
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/s
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 21:20, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Test 9 got: "This account is currently not available.: 192.0.2.1 is
> neither permitted nor denied by domain of 06.spf1-test.mailzone.com"
...
> It seems to be getting the strings it wants, there is just the extra
> "This account is
On Friday 23 February 2007 15:31, Brian Wilson wrote:
> [12921] info: FuzzyOcr: (6 word occurrences found)
>
> Simply changing focr_threshold from 0.25 to 0.30 allowed this to happen.
>
> Thanks again, snowcrash!
You'll find that a fuzz of 0.3 is likely to FP very badly. It was
originally set to
On Friday 09 February 2007 09:00, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > Jo Rhett wrote:
> As for LW_STOCK_SPAM4, it's being triggered by the fact that the
> message
> No you don't. I wrote that rule. That's why it starts with my
> initials. I didn't submit it to SA, and while it I think exists in S
On Thursday 08 February 2007 15:21, Ben Wylie wrote:
> As I understand it, these undefined dependencies are errors where a meta
> rule has been written to depend on another rule, which does not exist.
> These don't have catastrophic consequences, it just means that rule may
> not be effective.
Goo
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 15:57, Sebastian Ries wrote:
> I see that it's checked. That's why I typed "not REALLY checked" ;-)
>
> > It could be related to the locations of your rulesets
> > It could be related to the user you run SA/Spamd as
> > It could be related to the way you pipe the mail
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 15:01, Sebastian Ries wrote:
> Hi
>
> > What I see is that there are many mails are rated with 0:
> > Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]: spamd: clean message
> > (0.0/5.0) for spamfilter:511 in 4.6 seconds, 2524 bytes.
> > Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]:
On Monday 29 January 2007 12:27, Mike Kenny wrote:
> The subject may be sufficient. I have a file in my
> /etc/mail/spamassassin directory named 88_chickenpox. It seems to be
> checking for various sequence of a number of alpha followed by a
> punctuation character followed by a number of alpha. An
On Friday 01 December 2006 11:33, Chris Lear wrote:
> I got an EasyJet confirmation E-mail that scored like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] savvis.net
Nick
On Friday 01 December 2006 11:33, Chris Lear wrote:
> I got an EasyJet confirmation E-mail that scored like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] savvis.net
Nick
On Saturday 14 October 2006 02:24, Lee Manevitch wrote:
> I think I already know the answer to this, but does FuzzyOCR process
> all frames of an animated GIF?
Not out of the box, but it can do if you have a recent version of netpbm
which supports "giftopnm -image=all". There are two calls to gi
On Friday 20 October 2006 15:44, Nick Leverton wrote:
> HTH etc,
> Nick
> fuzzyocr-23b-hashdb-poison.patch.gz
Ignore that second patch which wasn't from decoder. I must have
accidentally dropped it into the mail somehow (have I mentioned recently I
hate GUI mailers ?)
Nick
On Thursday 19 October 2006 16:00, George R. Kasica wrote:
> Its not a formal released version from Chris/decoder. I'm running b
> here as it seems the most stable.
>
> If you want J is at:
Decoder said some time ago that J was an early development version and
recommended people go with b. He's
On Thursday 15 June 2006 03:43, Alan Premselaar wrote:
> Aside from the QP scatter, this subject doesn't look like it's properly
> encoded. if memory serves, if the encoded subject needs to be broken
> across multiple lines, each line needs to have its own encoding
> start/end tags.
>
> so it shou
Microsoft SMTPSVC seems to trigger BAD_ENC_HEADER when sending bounces if
it's been given a non-English bounce template (or whatever M$ use for
configuring that). Even bounces to correctly encoded mail. I've got quite
a number of examples, and all of them have a foreign language Subject
line,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:22:49AM -0800, Michael Parker wrote:
> Pollywog wrote:
> > Since installing DomainKeys, I have been getting this error in my logs:
> >
> > Can't locate Crypt/OpenSSL/Bignum.pm in @INC (@INC
> > contains: ../lib /usr/share/perl5 /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.4
> > /
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:16:22PM +, Duncan Hill wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2005 15:03, Jon Kvebaek wrote:
> > Hi,
> > we get quite a few messages that have no Received: headers. These seem
> > to cause ALL_TRUSTED to fire (with a negative score of course), which
> > isn't exactly what I
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:10:18AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Chris Thielen writes:
> > Did SA 2.6x support any if* statements in rulesfiles like 3.0 does (eg:
> > ifplugin)?
>
> Chris, pretty sure it didn't.
ISTR that it tried to, but it
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 01:10:05PM -0500, Michael Parker wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> For those of your that are installing Mail::DomainKeys. Please keep the
> following in mind.
>
> The domain keys plugin is experimental. One of the primary reasons it is
> experimental is because the Mail::DomainKeys mo
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:16:24PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> So, OpenSSL::RSA is installed, but "Crypt" isn't. Ahm, what package does
> it belong to? "m Crypt" or "m Crypt::OpenSSL" just tells me it doesn't
> exist.
OpenSSL::RSA != Crypt::OpenSSL::RSA. I found that I needed the latter.
Hav
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:22:06PM -0500, Stewart, John wrote:
>
> > Hmm, in my copy of SA 3.0.3 an ipwhois rule is present, but commented
> > out with a note saying "disabled since ipwhois is going away." By any
> > chance are you using an older version of SA?
>
> Aye, thanks. I'm using 2.6.4,
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:59:40PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The list I have collected is slightly different than yours.
>
snips
> Subject: Ihre Anfrage an Amazon.de
"Your question to amazon.de" - are you sure that's a spam subject ?
Nick
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 07:48:40AM -0400, Dimitri Yioulos wrote:
> If I take Bogus Virus Warnings out of my RDJ config file (ie. I don't use RDJ
> to download and install), I have no problems.
>
> I recently sent a message to Tim, but haven't gotten a response.
>
> Does anyone have any idea wh
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 05:09:40PM -0600, Chris wrote:
> I use RDJ to update rule sets, I only run it once a day. On the run for the
> 31st of March, RDJ reported:
>
> RulesDuJour Run Summary on cpollock.localdomain:
>
> The following rules had errors:
> Tim Jackson's (et al) bogus virus warnin
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:59:20AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> David B Funk wrote:
> > I have a functionally equivalent rule that I created back in SA-2.5 days.
>
> Me too. I started out making that a hard test. But I needed to back
> it out, darn it! Why can't legitimate MTAs play by the rules?
failure, only the IP address reported in the
fopen changes.
Sorry about posting here with it, but the only contact on the site is
[EMAIL PROTECTED], which bounces.
Nick Leverton
Warning: fopen("/var/vhosts/rulesemporium.com/html/ratelimit/217/217.155
.219.14.lck", "w") - Permi
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:26:10PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> Ray Anderson wrote:
>
> > I tried to deal with this one and got told to upgrade, which I cannot do at
> > this time.
>
> Same here. I was hoping that the 2 and 3 branches would live parallel lives
> for
> a while.
> I don't underst
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:56:18AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0946 +0200]:
> > This is not quantum physics, maybe mutt has some features to help
> > you with the tough task of posting to this list ?
>
> No, because mutt cannot and should not
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 05:10:27PM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Well...
>
> ver avg scan time
> 2.4x 2.7 seconds
> 3.0 30.4 seconds
>
> OH MY! Network test :)
>
> Any longer and I might just be doing greylisting by accident. ;)
Have you got a local (on-site, preferably on-machine) DNS ca
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 12:02:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Will anyone please help me?
>
> I've recently had a working sitewide install of spamassassin stop working
> and it's very upsetting! :(
Wotcher Hugh :)
Do you have any monitoring task scanning port 783 ? There's a bug
in spam
31 matches
Mail list logo
