On 4/20/2013 3:20 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-20 05:02:
>
>> Yes, I believe that me and the system always execute SA commands as the
>> "amavis" user. When I was using the SQL setup, I had the following in
>> local.cf:
>>
>> bayes_path /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/
Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-20 19:01:
Welp, that'll do it! How those four files were set to root:root
ownership is beyond me,
that means that root have doing some testing :)
later amavisd cant write, you should change to amavis user before
testing
su amavis -c cmd foo
but that was cert
Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-20 05:02:
Yes, I believe that me and the system always execute SA commands as
the
"amavis" user. When I was using the SQL setup, I had the following in
local.cf:
bayes_path /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes
is amavis have homedir in /var/lib/ ?
in gentoo its
Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-20 04:40:
By "feed it a few thousand NEW spams", do you mean to scrap the
training
corpora that I've hand-sorted in favor of starting over? Or do you
mean
to clear the database and re-run the training script against the
corpora?
ls /path/to/maildir/spam >/tmp/sp
So, the problem seems not to be SQL-specific, as it occurs with SQL or
flat-file DB.
Upon following Benny Pedersen's advice (to move SA configuration
directives from /etc/spamassassin/local.cf to
/var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/user_prefs), I noticed something unusual:
$ ls -lah /var/lib/amavis/.sp
Apologies for the rapid-fire here folks, but I wanted to correct something.
I had these backwards:
>> Yes, I believe that me and the system always execute SA commands as the
>> "amavis" user. When I was using the SQL setup, I had the following in
>> local.cf:
>>
>> bayes_path /var/lib/amavis/.sp
On 4/19/2013 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-19 18:02:
>
>> Still stumped here...
>
> for amavisd-new, put spamassassin sql setup into user_prefs file for the
> user amavisd-new runs as might be working better then have insecure sql
> settings in /etc/mail/spamass
On 4/19/2013 12:12 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 06:02 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> Still stumped here...
>
> do a bayes sa-learn --backup
>
> switch to file based in SDBM format (which is fast)
>
> do a
>
> sa-learn --restore
>
> feed it a few thousand NEW spams
>
> see what happens
>
>
Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-19 18:02:
Still stumped here...
for amavisd-new, put spamassassin sql setup into user_prefs file for
the user amavisd-new runs as might be working better then have insecure
sql settings in /etc/mail/spamassassin :)
i dont know if this is really that you have a
John Hardin skrev den 2013-04-18 04:15:
ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;
unicode is overkill since bayes is just ascii
it will if unicode is used create bigger db, that will slow down more
then ascii
Please check the SpamAssassin bugzilla to see if this situation is
al
On 04/19/2013 06:02 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
Still stumped here...
do a bayes sa-learn --backup
switch to file based in SDBM format (which is fast)
do a
sa-learn --restore
feed it a few thousand NEW spams
see what happens
On 4/19/2013 11:42 AM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Is this normal? If so, what is the explanation for this behavior? I have
>
> marked dozens of nearly-identical messages with the subject
> "Garden hose
> expands up to three times its length" as SPAM (over the course of
>
Hi,
> Is this normal? If so, what is the explanation for this behavior? I have
> marked dozens of nearly-identical messages with the subject "Garden hose
>> expands up to three times its length" as SPAM (over the course of
>> several weeks) as SPAM, and yet SA reports "not enough usable tokens
>>
Hi,
> Might anyone be in a position to offer an authoritative response to
> these questions?
>
> I continue to see messages that are very similar to dozens of messages
> that have been marked as SPAM slipping through with *no Bayes scoring*
> (this is *after* fixing the SQL syntax error issue):
>
On 4/18/2013 12:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
> My concern now is that I am on 3.3.1, with little control over upgrades.
> I have read all three bug reports in their entirety and Bug 6624 seems
> to be a very legitimate concern. To quote Mark in the bug description:
>
>> The effect of the bug wit
Hi,
> Curious: what are your reasons for using Bayes in SQL?
> > Are you sharing the DB among several machines? Or is this a single
> > box/global bayes setup?
> >
> >
>
> Not yet, but that is the ultimate plan (to share the DB across multiple
> servers). Also, I like the idea that the Bayes DB
On 4/18/2013 12:26 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 06:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> I have done some searching-around on the string "cannot use bayes on
>> this message; not enough usable tokens found" and have not found
>> anything authoritative regarding what this message might mean and
>> whethe
On 04/18/2013 06:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
I have done some searching-around on the string "cannot use bayes on
this message; not enough usable tokens found" and have not found
anything authoritative regarding what this message might mean and
whether or not it can be ignored or if it is symptomat
On 4/17/2013 10:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> The first post on that page was the key. In particular, adding the
>> following to each MySQL "CREATE TABLE" statement:
>>
>> ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;
>
> Please check the SpamAs
On 4/17/2013 5:39 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 17-04-13 21:40, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> Ideally, using the above directives will tell us whether we're
>> experiencing timeouts, or these spam messages are simply not in the
>> Pyzor or Razor2 databases.
>>
>> Off the top of your head, do you happen to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
The first post on that page was the key. In particular, adding the
following to each MySQL "CREATE TABLE" statement:
ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;
Please check the SpamAssassin bugzilla to see if this situation is already
mention
On 4/17/2013 6:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On 4/17/2013 5:05 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
>> Ben Johnson wrote:
>>> Is there anything else that would cause Bayes tests not be performed? I
>>> ask because other types of tests are disabled automatically under
>>> certain circumstances (e.g., networ
On 4/17/2013 5:05 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>> Is there anything else that would cause Bayes tests not be performed? I
>> ask because other types of tests are disabled automatically under
>> certain circumstances (e.g., network tests), and I'm wondering if there
>> is some obscu
On 17-04-13 21:40, Ben Johnson wrote:
> Ideally, using the above directives will tell us whether we're
> experiencing timeouts, or these spam messages are simply not in the
> Pyzor or Razor2 databases.
>
> Off the top of your head, do you happen to know what will happen if one
> or both of the Pyz
Ben Johnson wrote:
> Is there anything else that would cause Bayes tests not be performed? I
> ask because other types of tests are disabled automatically under
> certain circumstances (e.g., network tests), and I'm wondering if there
> is some obscure combination of factors that causes Bayes tests
Daniel, thanks for the quick reply. I'll reply inline, below.
On 4/16/2013 5:01 PM, Daniel McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/16/13 2:59 PM, "Ben Johnson" wrote:
>
>> Are there any normal circumstances under which Bayes tests are not run?
> Yes, if USE_BAYES = 0 is included in the local.cf file.
I
On 4/16/13 2:59 PM, "Ben Johnson" wrote:
>Are there any normal circumstances under which Bayes tests are not run?
Yes, if USE_BAYES = 0 is included in the local.cf file.
>
> If not, are there circumstances under which Bayes tests are run but
> their results are not included in the message he
Apologies for resurrecting the thread, but I never did receive a
response to this particular aspect of the problem (asked on Jan 18,
2013, 8:51 AM). This is probably because I replied to my own post before
anyone else did, and changed the subject slightly.
We are being hammered pretty hard with sp
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 2/1/2013 7:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
That latter brings up another concern for the vetted-corpora model: if a
message is *removed* from a training corpora mailbox rather than
reclassified, you'd have to wipe and retrain your database from scratch
to rem
On 2/1/2013 7:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, RW wrote:
>
>> ALLOWING APPENDS
>>By appends we mean the case of mail moving when the source folder is
>>unknown, e.g. when you move from some other account or with tools
>>like offlineimap. You should be careful with allo
On 2/1/2013 12:00 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> John, thanks for pointing-out the problems associated with re-sending
>> the messages via sendmail.
>>
>> I threw a line out to the Dovecot users group and learned how to move
>> messages without going through
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, RW wrote:
ALLOWING APPENDS
By appends we mean the case of mail moving when the source folder is
unknown, e.g. when you move from some other account or with tools
like offlineimap. You should be careful with allowing APPENDs to
SPAM folders. The reason for possibly
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:00:48 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
> > John, thanks for pointing-out the problems associated with
> > re-sending the messages via sendmail.
> >
> > I threw a line out to the Dovecot users group and learned how to
> > move messages
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
John, thanks for pointing-out the problems associated with re-sending
the messages via sendmail.
I threw a line out to the Dovecot users group and learned how to move
messages without going through the MTA. Dovecot has a utility
executable, "deliver", whic
On 1/31/2013 5:50 PM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:12:15 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>
>>> So, I finally got around to tackling this change.
>>>
>>> With a couple of simple modifications, I was able to achieve the
>>> desired result wit
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:12:15 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
> > So, I finally got around to tackling this change.
> >
> > With a couple of simple modifications, I was able to achieve the
> > desired result with the Dovecot Antispam plug-in.
> >
> > Bas
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Yes, users are allowed to train Bayes, via Dovecot's Antispam
plug-in. They do so unsupervised. Why this could be a problem is
obvious. And no, I don't retain their submissions. I probably
should. I wonder if I c
On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Yes, users are allowed to train Bayes, via Dovecot's Antispam plug-in.
They do so unsupervised. Why this could be a problem is obvious. And
no,
I don't retain their submissions. I probably should. I wonder if I can
make a few sligh
So, I've been keeping an eye on things again today.
Overall, things look pretty good, and most spam is being blocked
outright at the MTA and scored appropriately in SA if not.
I've been inspecting the X-Spam-Status headers for the handful of
messages that do slip through and noticed that most of
On 1/16/2013 2:22 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 1:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On 1/16/2013 11:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
Is it possible that the training I've been doing over the last week or
so wasn't *effective* until recentl
Hi,
>>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
>>> reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
>>> reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org,
>>> reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org,
>>> reject_rbl_client dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net,
>>
>> Several of those are combined in
On 1/16/2013 1:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/16/2013 11:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
Is it possible that the training I've been doing over the last week or
so wasn't *effective* until recently, say, after restarting some
component of the mail stack? My un
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/16/2013 11:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
That's odd. That suggests you SA wasn't looking up those DNSBLs, or they
would have contributed to the score.
Check your trusted networks setting. One difference between SMTP-time
and SA-time DNSBL checks is tha
On 1/16/2013 11:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
Wow! Adding several more reject_rbl_client entries to the
smtpd_recipient_restrictions directive in the Pos
On 1/16/2013 9:49 AM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
spamcop has a reputation of being somewhat aggressive on blocking,
and their website recommends using it in a scoring system (eg.
SpamAssassin) rather than for outright blocking. Th
On 1/16/2013 10:49 AM, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
Wow! Adding several more reject_rbl_client entries to the
smtpd_recipient_restrictions directive in the Postfix configuration
seems to be having a tremendous impact. The
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
Wow! Adding several more reject_rbl_client entries to the
smtpd_recipient_restrictions directive in the Postfix configuration
seems to be having a tremendous impact. The am
On 1/16/2013 2:02 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 1/15/13 5:26 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> In postfix's main.cf:
>>
>
>>
>> Hmm, very interesting. No, I have no greylisting in place as yet, and
>> no, my userbase doesn't demand immediate delivery. I will look into
>> greylisting further.
>
> I
On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/2013 1:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
> Question:
On 1/15/13 5:26 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
> In postfix's main.cf:
>
>
> Hmm, very interesting. No, I have no greylisting in place as yet, and
> no, my userbase doesn't demand immediate delivery. I will look into
> greylisting further.
If you're running postfix, consider using postscreen. It's a
On 2013/01/15 17:23, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, jdow wrote:
On 2013/01/15 08:26, Ben Johnson wrote:
Based on my responses, what's the next move? Backup the Bayes DB, wipe
it, and feed my corpus through the ol' chipper?
(Sure to infuriate BUT - read the WHOLE note.)
Are you
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, jdow wrote:
On 2013/01/15 08:26, Ben Johnson wrote:
Based on my responses, what's the next move? Backup the Bayes DB, wipe
it, and feed my corpus through the ol' chipper?
(Sure to infuriate BUT - read the WHOLE note.)
Are you sure your Bayes database is well trained?
On 2013/01/15 08:26, Ben Johnson wrote:
Based on my responses, what's the next move? Backup the Bayes DB, wipe
it, and feed my corpus through the ol' chipper?
(Sure to infuriate BUT - read the WHOLE note.)
Are you sure your Bayes database is well trained? But let's change that
to, "Is the Bay
On 2013/01/15 07:27, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/14/2013 7:48 PM, Noel wrote:
On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
jdow, Noel, and John, I can't thank you enough for your very thorough
responses. Your time is valuable and I sincerely appreciate your
willingness to help.
Glad it was even mar
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/15/2013 1:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
Question: do you have any SMTP-time hard-reject DNSBL tests in place? Or
are they all p
On 1/15/2013 4:39 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/15/2013 4:27 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> On 1/15/2013 4:05 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2013 3:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
One final question on this subject (sorry...).
Is there value in training Bayes on messages that SA classif
On 1/15/2013 4:27 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/15/2013 4:05 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 1/15/2013 3:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
One final question on this subject (sorry...).
Is there value in training Bayes on messages that SA classified as spam
*due to other test scores*? In other words, if a me
On 1/15/2013 4:05 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/15/2013 3:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> One final question on this subject (sorry...).
>>
>> Is there value in training Bayes on messages that SA classified as spam
>> *due to other test scores*? In other words, if a message is classified
>> as SPAM
On 1/15/2013 3:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
One final question on this subject (sorry...).
Is there value in training Bayes on messages that SA classified as spam
*due to other test scores*? In other words, if a message is classified
as SPAM due to a block-list test, but the message is new enough f
One final question on this subject (sorry...).
Is there value in training Bayes on messages that SA classified as spam
*due to other test scores*? In other words, if a message is classified
as SPAM due to a block-list test, but the message is new enough for
Bayes to assign a zero score, should tha
On 1/15/2013 1:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> Question: do you have any SMTP-time hard-reject DNSBL tests in place? Or
>>> are they all performed by SA?
>>
>> In
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
Question: do you have any SMTP-time hard-reject DNSBL tests in place? Or
are they all performed by SA?
In postfix's main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetwo
On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> I understand that snowshoe spam may not hit any net tests. I guess my
>> confusion is around what, exactly, classifies spam as "snowshoe".
>
> http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary
>
> Basically, a
On 1/14/2013 7:48 PM, Noel wrote:
> On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> I understand that snowshoe spam may not hit any net tests. I guess my
>> confusion is around what, exactly, classifies spam as "snowshoe".
>
> Snowshoe spam - spreading a spam run across a large number of IPs so
>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
I understand that snowshoe spam may not hit any net tests. I guess my
confusion is around what, exactly, classifies spam as "snowshoe".
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary
Basically, a large number of spambots sending the message so that no o
On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> I understand that snowshoe spam may not hit any net tests. I guess my
> confusion is around what, exactly, classifies spam as "snowshoe".
Snowshoe spam - spreading a spam run across a large number of IPs so
no single IP is sending a large volume. Typica
On 2013/01/14 12:59, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/14/2013 2:49 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:24:55 -0500
Ben Johnson wrote:
A clear pattern has emerged: the X-Spam-Status headers for very
obviously spammy messages never contain evidence that network tests
contributed to their SA scores.
On 2013/01/14 10:24, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/11/2013 4:27 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
I enabled Amavis's SA debugging mode on the server in question and was
able to extract the debug output for two messages that seem like they
should definitely be classified as spam.
Message #1: http://pastebin.co
On 1/14/2013 2:49 PM, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:24:55 -0500
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> A clear pattern has emerged: the X-Spam-Status headers for very
>> obviously spammy messages never contain evidence that network tests
>> contributed to their SA scores.
>>
>> Ultimately, I need to
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:24:55 -0500
Ben Johnson wrote:
> A clear pattern has emerged: the X-Spam-Status headers for very
> obviously spammy messages never contain evidence that network tests
> contributed to their SA scores.
>
> Ultimately, I need to know whether:
>
> a.) Network tests are not b
On 1/11/2013 4:27 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> I enabled Amavis's SA debugging mode on the server in question and was
> able to extract the debug output for two messages that seem like they
> should definitely be classified as spam.
>
> Message #1: http://pastebin.com/xLMikNJH
>
> Message #2: http:
On 1/10/2013 3:13 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 10-01-13 19:55, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/2013 1:06 PM, RW wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:48:07 -0500
>>> Ben Johnson wrote:
pon further consideration, this behavior makes perfect sense if the
mailbox user has moved the message
On 1/10/2013 4:12 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> So, at this point, I'm struggling to understand how the following
>> happened.
>>
>> Over the course of 15 minutes, I received the same exact message four
>> times. Each time, the message was sent to the same
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:55:58 -0500
Ben Johnson wrote:
> So, at this point, I'm struggling to understand how the following
> happened.
>
> Over the course of 15 minutes, I received the same exact message four
> times. Each time, the message was sent to the same recipient mailbox.
> The "From" and
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
So, at this point, I'm struggling to understand how the following happened.
Over the course of 15 minutes, I received the same exact message four
times. Each time, the message was sent to the same recipient mailbox.
The "From" and "Return-Path" headers ch
On 10-01-13 19:55, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On 1/10/2013 1:06 PM, RW wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:48:07 -0500
>> Ben Johnson wrote:
>>> pon further consideration, this behavior makes perfect sense if the
>>> mailbox user has moved the message from Inbox to Junk between scans;
>>> Dovecot's An
On 1/10/2013 1:06 PM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:48:07 -0500
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>> pon further consideration, this behavior makes perfect sense if the
>> mailbox user has moved the message from Inbox to Junk between scans;
>> Dovecot's Antispam filter is in use on this server. This acti
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:48:07 -0500
Ben Johnson wrote:
> pon further consideration, this behavior makes perfect sense if the
> mailbox user has moved the message from Inbox to Junk between scans;
> Dovecot's Antispam filter is in use on this server. This action would
> cause the message tokens to be
>>
>
> RW,
>
> I understand that, but that doesn't explain why if I retest a given
> message by calling SpamAssassin directly, and I *disable network tests*,
> the score is sometimes *higher* than when the message was scanned
> initially with AMaViS.
>
> When
been done on this box.
>
> As has already been said, the score from network tests is commonly a
> lot higher on retesting because of all the reporting that happened
> in-between.
>
RW,
I understand that, but that doesn't explain why if I retest a given
message by calling S
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:43:44 -0500
Ben Johnson wrote:
> This observation begs the question: why are network tests being
> performed for some messages but not others? To my knowledge, no
> white/gray/black listing has been done on this box.
As has already been said, the score from network tests
On 1/9/2013 9:13 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2013 7:36 PM, wolfgang wrote:
>>>
RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,RCVD_IN_CSS,RCVD_IN_PSBL,RCVD_IN_XBL,URIBL_DBL_S
PAM, URIBL_JP_SURBL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
>>>
>>> I am not familiar with amavi
On 10/01/13 00:03, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/9/2013 5:36 PM, RW wrote:
This is not better, it indicates that SA didn't recognise it as an
email, not that it recognised it as a spam. Whatever /tmp/msg.txt was
it wasn't a properly formatted email.
Thanks for the quick replies, Marius and RW.
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 1/9/2013 7:36 PM, wolfgang wrote:
RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,RCVD_IN_CSS,RCVD_IN_PSBL,RCVD_IN_XBL,URIBL_DBL_S
PAM, URIBL_JP_SURBL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
I am not familiar with amavis, but I know that it calls spamassassin in
a special way, depen
On 1/9/2013 7:36 PM, wolfgang wrote:
> On 2013-01-10 01:03, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> I see; I saved the email message out of Thunderbird (with View ->
>> Headers -> All), as a plain text file. Apparently, that process
>> butchers the original message.
>
> In Thunderbird, rather use File > Save a
On 2013-01-10 01:03, Ben Johnson wrote:
> I see; I saved the email message out of Thunderbird (with View ->
> Headers -> All), as a plain text file. Apparently, that process
> butchers the original message.
In Thunderbird, rather use File > Save as to save the entire message.
> RCVD_IN_BRBL_LAST
On 1/9/2013 5:36 PM, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:14:05 -0500
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> About five months ago, I experienced a problem that I *thought* I had
>> resolved, but I am observing similar behavior after retraining the
>> Bayes database. While the symptoms are similar, the root ca
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:14:05 -0500
Ben Johnson wrote:
> About five months ago, I experienced a problem that I *thought* I had
> resolved, but I am observing similar behavior after retraining the
> Bayes database. While the symptoms are similar, the root cause seems
> to be different (thankfully).
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:14:05PM -0500, Ben Johnson wrote:
> Content analysis details: (7.5 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> --
> --
> -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message w
1382400 0 non-token data: last expire
atime delta
0.000 0 3191 0 non-token data: last expire
reduction count
Ultimately, it seems that I should be trying to figure out how, exactly,
Amavis is calling SpamAssassin in the course of normal operation.
Thanks for any help here, folks!
-Ben
Hi All,
Am calling the parse function of SpamAssassin module. Am passing the html
message along with all the message headers.
The program returns the same input for all the messages, though the message
data and the message headers contain spammy content.
Please let me know if there are any change
> I've yet to hear anyone implementing SA for forms in a sensible manner..
Thanks for the feedback. If people have tried before it's unlikely
I'll do much better :)
> It would make much more sense to me to just apply well known form spam
> specific checks into your code. The standard captcha, to
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Mike Tonks wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm looking into hooking the Mail::SpamAssassin module into a perl
> processor for a couple of web forms - contact us, comments form, and
> publish an article form (open publishing).
I've yet to hear anyone implementing S
On 8/5/2010 5:58 AM, Mike Tonks wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm looking into hooking the Mail::SpamAssassin module into a perl
> processor for a couple of web forms - contact us, comments form, and
> publish an article form (open publishing).
>
> The main barrier seems to be the need for a message form
Hi folks,
I'm looking into hooking the Mail::SpamAssassin module into a perl
processor for a couple of web forms - contact us, comments form, and
publish an article form (open publishing).
The main barrier seems to be the need for a message format rather than
just a plain text body.
I tried two
Hi
I am looking at writing an extension to MailScanner so that we can allow
different settings to be applied.
My primary objective is to allow different username to be used for bayes.
If I am able to achieve scores and and rules as well this would be a bonus.
I have mocked something up which us
sendmail -> spamass-milter -> spamd - because I needed to be a
spam/virus filter relay for other mail servers. Also, I like being
able to reject mail if SA deems it spam. That way if it is a false
positive then the sender is aware that the end user did not get the
mail instead of going into a s
y stupid things - like play a
distinctive sound file when I receive email from certain customers
as an alert.)
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Mullins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 2007, June 22 06:12
Subject: Calling Spamassassin
Just curios to see how pe
> Also, that way outgoing mail is not driven thru SpamAssassin,
> which is good.
Depends. In my experience it is not good.
Running outgoing mail through SpamAssassin has some advantages:
- prevents internal infected/zombiized hosts from spewing their stuff;
- presents quality examples of ham to b
>Just curios to see how people call SA? And, why did you choose one method over
>another? We have been using Amavisd to call SA for the last three or four
>years.
>Recently, I have tried out the daemonized version of SA.
Using spamd, and spamc from /etc/maildroprc
That way I can use different
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
