Re: Loading custom rules.

On 02/25/2018 08:20 PM, Philip wrote: How do you load custom rules... is it as simple as dropping the .cf file in the spamassassin directory and restart? I'm looking at these: https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets Phil Yep. Usually /etc/mail/spamassassin and restart wha

Loading custom rules.

How do you load custom rules... is it as simple as dropping the .cf file in the spamassassin directory and restart? I'm looking at these: https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets Phil

RE: Custom rules regex help

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, emailitis.com wrote: I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam. Rules are: # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5 ...etc. Did you miss the earlier replies to this question? Read the list archives for t

Re: Custom rules regex help

On 10/15/2015 11:01 AM, emailitis.com wrote: I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam. Rules are: # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5 # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5 a

RE: Custom rules regex help

I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam. Rules are: # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5 # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5 and extract from maillog is: /roo

Re: Custom rules regex help

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Bill Cole wrote: Your "All" rule will only match a header named "All" which is unlikely to exist. If you want it to match against all headers, you MUST use 'ALL' rather than 'All' or 'all' or any other capitalization pattern. Ugh, I missed that nuance... -- John Hardin

Re: Custom rules regex help

On 12 Oct 2015, at 14:01, Bill Cole wrote: Your "All" rule will only match a header named "All" which is unlikely to exist. Clarifying: it would match a header named with any capitalization pattern of "All" because individual header names are matched case-insensitively, but it won't match t

Re: Custom rules regex help

On 12 Oct 2015, at 12:41, emailitis.com wrote: Can a regex expert help me identify why that did not trigger one of the CGK_ZCSEND_x rules? Not without seeing the headers of the message in question *as they are seen by SA*. However, I can offer a few generic tips: Header rules match against

Re: Custom rules regex help

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, emailitis.com wrote: I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam. Rules are: # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5 # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5 You're

Custom rules regex help

I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam. Rules are: # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5 # zcsend Spam header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/ score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5 and extract from maillog is: /roo

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On 26.05.15 11:34, Forrest wrote: Subject: Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching On 5/21/15 1:41 PM, Axb wrote: does this work? headerLIST_ID_MARKET_EEKList-ID =~ /emarketeerz/ I've tried this, and it doesn't appear to be working. I just received another message t

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On 26 May 2015, at 11:34, Forrest wrote: On 5/21/15 1:41 PM, Axb wrote: does this work? headerLIST_ID_MARKET_EEKList-ID =~ /emarketeerz/ I've tried this, and it doesn't appear to be working. I just received another message today, here are the headers (sanitized). It seems quite

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On 5/21/15 1:41 PM, Axb wrote: does this work? headerLIST_ID_MARKET_EEKList-ID =~ /emarketeerz/ I've tried this, and it doesn't appear to be working. I just received another message today, here are the headers (sanitized). I would think that a simple match on "emarketeerz" woul

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On 21 May 2015, at 17:36, Benny Pedersen wrote: On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM "Bill Cole" wrote: On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in > mailto: ? Sure, why not? See RFC's 821, 822, 2821, 2822, 5321, and 5322

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On 2015-05-21 16:47, Forrest wrote: On 5/21/15 5:36 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM "Bill Cole" wrote: On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in > mailto: ? Sure, why not? See RFC's 821, 822,

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On 5/21/15 5:36 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM "Bill Cole" wrote: On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in > mailto: ? Sure, why not? See RFC's 821, 822, 2821, 2822, 5321, and 5322 :) The

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM "Bill Cole" wrote: On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in > mailto: ? Sure, why not? See RFC's 821, 822, 2821, 2822, 5321, and 5322 :) There is nothing special about '+' in an email a

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote: Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in mailto: ? Sure, why not? See RFC's 821, 822, 2821, 2822, 5321, and 5322 :) There is nothing special about '+' in an email address in SMTP or in the email data format. It is on

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in mailto: ?

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

Reject list-id in mta stage, and this template have no unsubscribe links, what a catcher

Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching

does this work? header LIST_ID_MARKET_EEK List-ID =~ /emarketeerz/ On 21.05.2015 19:31, Forrest wrote: I'm having a problem with a spammer who is using Google Groups as a base. They manage to re-subscribe people, etc., and it's hosted on a private domain, so I can't get to the panel to r

user_prefs custom rules, not matching

I'm having a problem with a spammer who is using Google Groups as a base. They manage to re-subscribe people, etc., and it's hosted on a private domain, so I can't get to the panel to report the domain. In any case, I wrote a couple of simple rules in user_prefs that /should/ match, but they

Re: custom rules header check please

On 11/8/2013 6:59 AM, emailitis.com wrote: Thank you and Benny for your help. I put those in place and all looks well. We had one captured this morning but wondered if you can explain in the log below which seems as if it has been deleted, yet then allowed: Nov 8 10:05:04 plesk3 spamd[119

RE: custom rules header check please

origin_rdns: mail.domain.com auth: (unknown) encryption: (none) reason: 250_ok_1383905104_qp_18522 Kind Regards, Christoph From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:bowie_bai...@buc.com] Sent: 07 November 2013 15:50 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: custom rules header check please On 11

Re: custom rules header check please

emailitis.com skrev den 2013-11-07 16:40: header AEXP_ALL ALL =~ /aexp.com/i header EXVM_ALL ALL =~ /exvm.com/i why not blacklist_from ? blacklist_from *@aexp.com blacklist_from *@exvm.com olso remember . needs excapeing \. in header but not as blacklist_from :) does your real name contain

Re: custom rules header check please

:15:36 plesk3 spamdyke[26254]: ALLOWED from: administrator+98453-927...@dcbltd.exvm.com to: u...@domain.com origin_ip: 193.133.125.41 origin_rdns: mta18.evmailer.com auth: (unknown) encryption: (none) reason: 250_ok_1383819336_qp_26270 I want to write some custom rules that can capture part o

custom rules header check please

trator+98453-927...@dcbltd.exvm.com to: u...@domain.com origin_ip: 193.133.125.41 origin_rdns: mta18.evmailer.com auth: (unknown) encryption: (none) reason: 250_ok_1383819336_qp_26270 I want to write some custom rules that can capture part of this (because on the actual emails, the sender often pu

Re: Unable to verify custom rules being loaded from 'local.cf'

On 07/17/2013 03:39 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: IMPORTANT NOTE: First email to the list was blocked because local(munged).cf is blacklisted. Any of the Blacklist experts have any thoughts on that issue? Is it a legit URL in spams? HE! local[[.]]cf listed on black.uribl.com local[[

Re: Unable to verify custom rules being loaded from 'local.cf'

How can I test whether the custom rule sets in 'local(munged to avoid URIBLs).cf' are being loaded by spamassassin on my production setup? Put your rules in another file, let's say ASHISH.cf. Run spamassassin -D --lint 2>&1 | grep ASHISH Look for something like: Jul 17 09:22:26.419 [12158]

Unable to verify custom rules being loaded from 'local.cf'

Original Message Subject: Unable to verify custom rules being loaded from 'local.cf' From: "Sharma, Ashish" To: users@spamassassin.apache.org CC: Hi, I have a amavisd-new setup with spamassassin(3.3.1) on RHEL 5.8 , at the following location: /e

Results of eval and meta rules (was: Re: SA 3.3.1 bug or mistake in my custom rules?)

On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 03:57 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: > On 13/10/2011 1:45 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > In a related note, as per the M::SA::Conf docs for meta rules -- "The > > value of a hit meta test is that of its arithmetic expression. The value > > of a hit eval test is that retu

Re: SA 3.3.1 bug or mistake in my custom rules?

On 13/10/2011 1:45 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 23:32 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: Starting today, I've noticed that 3 of my rules fire in situations where they should not. They are simple meta rules that count how many rule, against certain URIBL rules, fire. They the

Re: SA 3.3.1 bug or mistake in my custom rules?

On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 23:32 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: > Starting today, I've noticed that 3 of my rules fire in situations where > they should not. They are simple meta rules that count how many rule, > against certain URIBL rules, fire. They then raise the spam score. > meta LW_URIBL_LO (

SA 3.3.1 bug or mistake in my custom rules?

Hi, I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (cPanel) with latest rule updates. Starting today, I've noticed that 3 of my rules fire in situations where they should not. They are simple meta rules that count how many rule, against certain URIBL rules, fire. They then raise the spam score. They are as f

Re: SaneSecurity custom rules

> header L_AV_Unofficial X-Amavis-AV-Status =~ > m{\bAV:Sanesecurity.TestSig_Type4_Hdr.2.UNOFFICIAL\b} > Which seems to be scoring 4 just fine: > X-Spam-Status: ... tests=[.. L_AV_Unofficial=4 Indeed. > The weird part is this: > > X-Spam-Status: ... > tests=[AV:Sanesecurity.TestSig_Type4_Hdr

Re: SaneSecurity custom rules

t is only > adding 0.1 points. It looks like you're talking about one specific rule, and then gave us an example with a pile of custom rules without telling us which one you were talking about. Which is annoying. But I think it's this one: header L_AV_Unoff

SaneSecurity custom rules

I am working on adding some rules to SA so that SA adds more points when detecting a signature. Here is a pastebin of the headers and the rules: http://pastebin.com/qnwbSq5d It should be adding 4 points as per my rule, but as it is it is only adding 0.1 points. -- Munroe Sollog Digirati Consult

Re: some custom rules query

On 2010-11-16 23:52, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:20 -0800, John Hardin wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote: >>> 2. Email body contains less than 4 characters >>> >>> I've never seen mail with so sh

Re: some custom rules query

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:20 -0800, John Hardin wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote: > > > >> 2. Email body contains less than 4 characters > > > > I've never seen mail with so short a body - where's the spam payload? > > Lik

Re: some custom rules query

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote: 2. Email body contains less than 4 characters I've never seen mail with so short a body - where's the spam payload? Likely the Subject line. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.

Re: some custom rules query

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote: > Hello, > I've seen all but (2) in ham, so be careful with these rules - you probably want to score them at 0.01 and use them in meta-rules. > Just wanted to create (or use if they already exist) some rules: > 1. Email body contains more than 10

some custom rules query

Hello, Just wanted to create (or use if they already exist) some rules: 1. Email body contains more than 10 newliners without any text between them 2. Email body contains less than 4 characters 3. Email body contains only a line of text and a line with some URL Any help appreciated. Regards, Mike

Re: [sa] Re: Custom rules - escape characters

On Fri, 7 May 2010, Daniel Lemke wrote: Am I seeing ghosts or is this the third time you asked the same question on this list? Your first mail was already replied so I suggest you have a look there to get your answers. Daniel Oh, good, it's not my mail server acting up again! (smile) To OP: S

Re: Custom rules - escape characters

if I annoyed anyone. > > SK > > Try this: http://old.nabble.com/custom-rules---escape-which-characters--tt28469892.html Daniel -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Custom-rules---escape-characters-tp28482942p28483295.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Custom rules - escape characters

> C.M. Burns wrote: > >> Hi list, >> >> when creating acustom rule, what characters have to be escaped? >> >> For example this scustom rule >> http://www.novell.com/communities/node/4630/whitelisting-ip-address-spamassassin >> escapes both [ and ] while in common regex on only [ must be escap

Re: Custom rules - escape characters

el -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Custom-rules---escape-characters-tp28482942p28483025.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Custom rules - escape characters

Hi list, when creating acustom rule, what characters have to be escaped? For example this scustom rule http://www.novell.com/communities/node/4630/whitelisting-ip-address-spamassassin escapes both [ and ] while in common regex on only [ must be escaped http://www.regular-expressions.info/characte

Custom rules - which chars to escape?

Hi list, when creating acustom rule, what characters have to be escaped? For example this scustom rule http://www.novell.com/communities/node/4630/whitelisting-ip-address-spamassassin escapes both [ and ] while in common regex on only [ must be escaped http://www.regular-expressions.info/characte

Re: custom rules - escape which characters?

Hi, On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 08:48:35AM +0200, C.M. Burns wrote: > > when creating a custom rule, what characters have to be escaped? every character with special meaning in perl regular expressions and in the place it's used. In example it's a big difference if ] is used in a character class

custom rules - escape which characters?

Hi list, when creating a custom rule, what characters have to be escaped? For example this scustom rule http://www.novell.com/communities/node/4630/whitelisting-ip-address-spamassassin escapes both [ and ], while in common regex on only [ must be escaped http://www.regular-expressions.info/chara

Custom rules in mysql

Hello list, I have a slight problem using custom rules with latest SA release. I am using a mysql DB to store the per user and per domain configs as described in the SA howto. Now I wanted to write a custom rule which should also be stored in the mysql DB. This does not seem to work, although

Re: A few basic questions about custom rules

I received answers to my questions off-list, so I'll reply to myself and share them with the rest of everyone. :) > describe CJB_ESHOP_GR Contains reference to e-shop.gr > header CJB_ESHOP_GR ALL =~ /e-shop\.gr/i > score CJB_ESHOP_GR 0.01 > >The efficiency and wisdom of matching against any

A few basic questions about custom rules

Hey folks, I'm playing around with writing some rules, something I've never done before. I'm not looking to do anything fancy, I just wanted to learn how to do it. So, I picked one of my spams at total random, and wanted to match on "e-shop.gr" in any of the headers. The rule, I believe,

RE: Custom Rules Question SOLVED(ish)

The problem was multiline rules with rawbody. Changing it to full and things work. (I missed that little detail in the wiki, and there are body rules in the dist that have /is) A rule in-between rawbody/full? I.e. the whole body, but not the headers? Or even better, in addition to that, p

Re: Custom Rules Question

Because your first option matches the style inside the brackets and your second option does take into account the forward slash before style? Todd Michael Dilworth wrote: OK, it's late and I'm tired, and this will probably end up being stupid regex issue, but: why does... rawbody STYLE_IN_B

Re: Custom Rules Question

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Michael Dilworth wrote: garbage... If you're looking for nonsense STYLE content, take a look in my sandbox. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79

Re: Custom Rules Question

Michael Dilworth wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:45:20 -0800: > rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\.*\/si not match? because the HTML doesn't contain "

Custom Rules Question

OK, it's late and I'm tired, and this will probably end up being stupid regex issue, but: why does... rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\.*style/si match and: rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\.*\/si not match? given a message body: >> ... ... garbage... ... <

Re: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 22:31 +, Gary Forrest wrote: > > All working now :) > Many thanks for the responses. Oh, come on, Gary -- you could at least tell us what the issue was, and maybe how you found out and fixed it. After all, the rule does indeed look ok. ;) -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...

Re: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

Hi All All working now :) Many thanks for the responses. Regards Gary Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: Hi All Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same email address ? We want to black list email from sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to one off our staff

Re: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: > Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same > email address ? Quick point – if you have short-circuiting turned on, then they may well be… James. -- E-mail: james@ | Which do you consider was the stronger s

Re: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: We want to black list email from sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to one off our staff. ( we have requested removal from there list many times, to no effect ) Perhaps an MTA hard-fail rule would be better for this purpose. -- John Har

RE: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:34 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > The meta rule has a single underscore prefix, probably to denote local > > rules. Though there are better prefixes for that, IMHO. ;) > > > > Anyway, a single underscore isn't a meta-match sub-rule and works a

RE: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

Bowie Bailey wrote: > Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: > > > > So we have the following custom rule > > > > describe _GMF_CNET01 blacklist > > sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to caro...@netnorth.co.uk > > header __GMF_CNET01_FROM From =~ > > /silic...@newsletters\.silicon\.cne

Re: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

On Wed, February 4, 2009 16:17, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: > Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the > same email address ? > We want to black list email from > sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to in local.cf or user_prefs unwhiteli

RE: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:06 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote: > > Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: > > > > meta _GMF_CNET01 ( __GMF_CNET01_FROM && __GMF_CNET01_TO > > > ) score _GMF_CNET01 200 > > > The problem is the way you named the rule. > > > > From th

RE: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:06 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote: > Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: > > meta _GMF_CNET01 ( __GMF_CNET01_FROM && __GMF_CNET01_TO ) > > score _GMF_CNET01 200 > The problem is the way you named the rule. > > From the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page: > >

Re: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:17 +, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: > > Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same email > address ? Nope. Custom rules are unaffected. > Running, spamassassin -D --lint, shows no errors / warnings Running it through spamass

RE: Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote: > > So we have the following custom rule > > describe _GMF_CNET01 blacklist > sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to caro...@netnorth.co.uk > header __GMF_CNET01_FROM From =~ > /silic...@newsletters\.silicon\.cneteu\.net/i > header __GMF_

Are custom rules ignored if a white list entry is in playq

Hi All Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same email address ? We want to black list email from sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to one off our staff. ( we have requested removal from there list many times, to no effect ) So we have the following custom

Re: Custom rules

Fabrizio Regalli wrote: Hi Jonathan, nice to hear this. I'm using amavisd-new also. My local.cf is owned by root, but readable from world -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1304 Dec 1 19:00 local.cf Do you think this is the problem? 2008/12/1 Jonathan Scott

Re: Custom rules

It works! I sent a mail with www.viapaypal.com in the body: *X-Spam-Flag:* YES *X-Spam-Score:* 13.178 *X-Spam-Level:* * *X-Spam-Status:* Yes, score=13.178 tagged_above=undef required=6.31 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL=5, RA

Re: Custom rules

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:37:36PM +0100, Fabrizio Regalli wrote: > >> uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\// > >> score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0 > >> (for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com < > >> http://www.viapaypal.com/> into body) > >> I've add it to /

Re: Custom rules

Hi Jonathan, nice to hear this. I'm using amavisd-new also. My local.cf is owned by root, but readable from world -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1304 Dec 1 19:00 local.cf Do you think this is the problem? 2008/12/1 Jonathan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fabrizio Regalli wrote: > >> Hello. >> I'm w

Re: Custom rules

No, it gives me nothing. :~# spamassassin --lint :~# 2008/12/1 Joe Vieira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > does spamassassin --lint give you any errors? > > Joe > > Fabrizio Regalli wrote: > >> Hello. >> I'm writing my custom rule >> uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\// >> score LOCAL_

Re: Custom rules

Fabrizio Regalli wrote: Hello. I'm writing my custom rule uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\// score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0 (for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com into body) I've add it to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.

Re: Custom rules

does spamassassin --lint give you any errors? Joe Fabrizio Regalli wrote: Hello. I'm writing my custom rule uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\// score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0 (for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com into

Custom rules

Hello. I'm writing my custom rule uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\// score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0 (for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com into body) I've add it to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf but I can't see it with spamassassin --lint -D (and the

Re: Ensuring Custom Rules Are Scored Properly

Andrew Wilkinson wrote: I'm experimenting with Fedora 8 and a miltered sendmail configuration running as a mail gateway (smf-sav, smf-spf, milter-greylist, clamav-milter, spamass-milter). I've configured spamassassin's local.cf with a custom rule. It's a simple regex which checks the 'Receive

Re: Ensuring Custom Rules Are Scored Properly

Andrew Wilkinson wrote: I'm experimenting with Fedora 8 and a miltered sendmail configuration running as a mail gateway (smf-sav, smf-spf, milter-greylist, clamav-milter, spamass-milter). I've configured spamassassin's local.cf with a custom rule. It's a simple regex which checks the 'Receiv

Ensuring Custom Rules Are Scored Properly

I'm experimenting with Fedora 8 and a miltered sendmail configuration running as a mail gateway (smf-sav, smf-spf, milter-greylist, clamav-milter, spamass-milter). I've configured spamassassin's local.cf with a custom rule. It's a simple regex which checks the 'Received' header on inbound mai

RE: SA Custom Rules

This is a good place to start, especially if you want to understand Meta rule writing: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules The rest is up to your knowledge of Perl regular expressions and applying them to match spam. Beware downloading 3rd party custom rules, as what works for

SA Custom Rules

Where is a good starting place to find information about how to write GOOD rules? Best Regards, Jason Holbrook Chief Technology Integrator / Partner Empower Information Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] weblog.empoweris.com www.empoweris.com Skype: holbrook.jason

Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

I appreciate that you would like to see it working right, Daryl. To that, I'd add, "me, too." But, like I said, I had to move on, and I hope to get back to it soon. And, by the way, I played with setting the update paths to all kinds of places, and all kinds of permissions, too. ;-) I'm sure

Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

Andy Norris wrote: No, it was not a permissions issue. I'll get back to working on it soon, but, yes there were newer versions than what I was seeing on my server. There are so many posts about sa-update not working. I'm sure sa-update works, for some folks, but it wasn't for me, and I had to

Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

No, it was not a permissions issue. I'll get back to working on it soon, but, yes there were newer versions than what I was seeing on my server. There are so many posts about sa-update not working. I'm sure sa-update works, for some folks, but it wasn't for me, and I had to quit spending time

Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

Daniel J McDonald wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 08:35 -0500, Andy Norris wrote: So a down and dirty approach I took was writing a crop job that removes that directory just before running sa-update. So, you delete it every time, even when there are no updates? And since updates occur about

Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 08:35 -0500, Andy Norris wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know if this is relevant for you or not, but on our mail > server I could not get sa-update to work, either. I noticed that if > the directory was not there, however, it would work. Sounds like a permissions issue. >

RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

inal Message- > From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 October 2007 13:30 > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates > > > Boy, that's a handy command. I'll have to write that one down. > > I&

RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

Thanks Andy, I have verified that sa-update is running and the rules folder is getting populated with lots of files. -Original Message- From: Andy Norris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October-30-07 9:35 AM To: Randal, Phil Cc: Rob Starr; Subject: Re: Custom rules working, but not sa

Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

ug --debug-sa output say it is using? Cheers, Phil -- Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK -Original Message- From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2007 12:29 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: RE: Custom rules working, but not sa

RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

g? > > Cheers, > > Phil > -- > Phil Randal > Network Engineer > Herefordshire Council > Hereford, UK > >> -Original Message- >> From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 30 October 2007 12:29 >> To: users@spamassassin.apach

RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

t; To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates > > > Thanks for your response Phil, > > In an attempt to resolve the issue, I'm now using MailScanner > 4.64.3 and > have started from a fresh config file, so my "Spam

RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

re Council > Hereford, UK > >> -Original Message- >> From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 30 October 2007 11:54 >> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates >> >> >> I

RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK > -Original Message- > From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 October 2007 11:54 > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates > > > I should

Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates

3. > > My problem is that lots of spam is getting through because the rules > don't seem to be getting used, however my set of custom rules work > just fine (and disabling the custom ones hasn't helped). I'm using > Mailwatch so I can easily see which rules are be

RE: v3.2.3 isn't recognizing local.cf custom rules

> -Original Message- > From: MaraBlue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 August 2007 01:09 > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: v3.2.3 isn't recognizing local.cf custom rules > > > > > Robert - elists-2 wrote: > > > > > >> >

RE: v3.2.3 isn't recognizing local.cf custom rules

> > What's with this? There's no need for this on this list. > Maybe not... pray for victory over the moron stick for me please. > > You've asked many a question here that the above would have applied to > No kiddin? :-) Im sure I would agree... I imagine the ESR smart questions faq wou

Re: v3.2.3 isn't recognizing local.cf custom rules

On 8/18/2007 6:19 PM, Robert - elists wrote: I have *always* run SA through MailScanner. This configuration is not new, I have run it this way for *years*. The only thing that's new is the version of SA. As soon as I upgraded to v3.2.3, the problems started. If you can't be helpful, I can certai

Re: v3.2.3 isn't recognizing local.cf custom rules

On 8/18/2007 12:43 PM, MaraBlue wrote: Kai Schaetzl wrote: MaraBlue wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:02:16 -0700 (PDT): there several versions back. I've run --lint -D, and SA is reading local.cf (I can post the log if needed). The only other thing I changed a few days before this started was s

  1   2   >