Hi Martin,
Thanks for the reply.
> Please keep your messages on the SA Users list.
Here's my Cc line on the message you replied to:
Cc: RW , "users@spamassassin.apache.org"
I don't know why it wouldn't go through to the list, perhaps I
shouldn't include spammy terms in the message body (I n
On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 15:37 -0800, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
> Thank you John, that does help clarify things a bit. Also thanks to
> Martin - I was typing this message when I received yours, but maybe
> this will answer some of your questions.
>
Please keep your messages on the SA Users list. Apart
" (which my mail setup is configured to use) still give
> it a 4.0. So it seems that something more mundane is going on,
> although I'm not sure what. I hope it's not that I've just done
> something stupid again.
>
> Also, it seems that I should have set up a &
d the report from "spamassassin -t" (with a "URIBL_BLOCKED"
> rule).
>
> Thank you,
>
> Frederick
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 07:16:43PM +, David Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > From: RW
> > > Sent: Satu
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
Also, it seems that I should have set up a "caching nameserver". I've
attached the report from "spamassassin -t" (with a "URIBL_BLOCKED"
rule).
The important part is that your MTA/SA not use your ISP or hosting
provider's DNS sever, and the local M
.
Thank you,
Frederick
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 07:16:43PM +, David Jones wrote:
>
> >From: RW
> >Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 8:02 AM
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>
> >On Sa
>From: RW
>Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 8:02 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:35:16 +
>David Jones wrote:
>> That mail server IP above is on a very high number of RBLs:
>
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:35:16 +
David Jones wrote:
> That mail server IP above is on a very high number of RBLs:
> http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/173.230.94.183.html
>
> The edge MX server 104.197.242.163 must not be doing any
> MTA checks of RBLs.
As I already mentioned it's normal to g
>From: frede...@ofb.net
>Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 1:35 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Cc: John Hardin
>Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>Here's the sample spam:
> From tfioxmns...@mariupol.us Fri Dec 16 20:30:08 2016
>
Dear all,
Thanks for all the replies to my question, I think all of them were
useful to read. Thank you all for your time.
I wasn't sure whom to reply to, but I've been tinkering with my setup
and I think that many spam messages are getting through which should
be caught by the so-called "Bayesia
Hi Marc, I would say off hand that amavis and mailscanner aren't the same thing
as mimedefang.
Sure they can strap in clamd and spamd but they are more products than
frameworks.
Mimedefang would likely frustrate non programmers because it doesn't strap
things in by default and using it you nee
Am 2016-12-15 19:56, schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
By now I have heard of MIMEDefang many times, and each time I wanted to
try it. But it seems to require the milter interface in the MTA
(ie. sendmail or _maybe_ postfix), and I'm married to Exim. :-(
Well, MIMEDefang is not the only kid on the block
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 20:20:02 +
David Jones wrote:
> >From: Martin Gregorie
> >Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:39 PM
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>
> >On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 18:23 +
>From: Martin Gregorie
>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:39 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 18:23 +, David Jones wrote:
>> There are many valuable SMTP realtime checks that must b
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 18:23 +, David Jones wrote:
> There are many valuable SMTP realtime checks that must be done at
> the edge MTA. Since you don't have control of this, then you have to
> resort to tuning SA constantly which is a never-ending game of
> cat-n-mouse since spam changes charact
Ian Zimmerman skrev den 2016-12-15 19:56:
On 2016-12-15 11:32, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I'm a fan of MIMEDefang but I am not very familiar with Arch Linux so
I don't know what mta you are using nor it's capabilities.
By now I have heard of MIMEDefang many times, and each time I wanted to
try i
On 2016-12-15 12:56, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-12-15 11:32, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I'm a fan of MIMEDefang but I am not very familiar with Arch Linux so
I don't know what mta you are using nor it's capabilities.
By now I have heard of MIMEDefang many times, and each time I wanted to
try i
On 2016-12-15 11:32, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I'm a fan of MIMEDefang but I am not very familiar with Arch Linux so
> I don't know what mta you are using nor it's capabilities.
By now I have heard of MIMEDefang many times, and each time I wanted to
try it. But it seems to require the milter int
> There are many valuable SMTP realtime checks that must be done at
> the edge MTA. Since you don't have control of this, then you have to
> resort to tuning SA constantly which is a never-ending game of
> cat-n-mouse since spam changes characteristics all of the time.
That was unfortunately my
>From: frede...@ofb.net
>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 11:26 AM
>To: David Jones
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: recent increase in spam getting through
>I'm using a friend's MTA, which is perhaps the source of the recent
>change - I'
20d4"
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:42:16PM +, David Jones wrote:
> >From: frede...@ofb.net
> >Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:33 AM
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: recent increase in spam getting through
>
> > X-Spam-Status: No,
>From: frede...@ofb.net
>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:33 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: recent increase in spam getting through
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,HTML_MESSAGE,
> RDNS_NONE,T_SPF_TEMPERROR autolearn=
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
sudo -u spamd sa-learn --showdots -D 1 --ham --dir ~/mail/folders/inbox
Bad idea. That learns as ham any FNs you haven't yet noticed and removed
from your inbox.
You should only learn as ham messages that you have explicitly reviewed
and judged
On 12/15/2016 11:24 AM, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
No, I only run Spamassassin. I take it that 'clamav' would improve
things.
I don't have numbers in front of me, but these malicious payloads with
zips are quite common but we don't
What do you mean "if you are using an engine that can do it"?
Spam
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your reply.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:07:33AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 10:33 AM, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
> > Dear Spamassassin,
> >
> > I've seen a recent increase in spam getting through Spamassassin...
> > I've
On 12/15/2016 10:33 AM, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
Dear Spamassassin,
I've seen a recent increase in spam getting through Spamassassin...
I've been getting groups of spam messages which have the same subject,
often with zip attachments. Here's a screenshot from Mutt:
It&#
Dear Spamassassin,
I've seen a recent increase in spam getting through Spamassassin...
I've been getting groups of spam messages which have the same subject,
often with zip attachments. Here's a screenshot from Mutt:
36604 N * Dec 15 %GIRL_NAME Lyon (0.2K) Re: Healthy soul
I too have seen an increase in spam. A lot more coming from the UK and
Brazil in particular and it's spam that SA isn't catching. Seems to have
bayes poisoning in it as well.
On 1/24/2013 1:41 AM, tony wrote:
centos 5.8 server running spamassassin-3.3.1-2.el5
I've been using s
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 01:41 -0800, tony wrote:
> centos 5.8 server running spamassassin-3.3.1-2.el5
> I've been using spamassassin for three years and during that period it's
> been doing a great job of keeping spam down to almost zero but in the last
> couple of weeks I've seen and increase in jun
ore
individual targetting these days
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/sudden-increase-in-spam-tp103247.html
> Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
--
[*] sys4 AG
a day which is a big increase over zero. I wanted to know if anyone
else has experienced this...
Have the spammers worked out a new way around the current SA machinery?
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/sudden-increase-in-spam-tp103247.html
Sent from t
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Randy wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing a massive increase in connection attempts since 7am EDT
this morning.
Most is being rejected because of not existing users but the majority
that is getting through is hitting
"Sanesecurity.Casino.11228.UNOFFICIAL".
Randy wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing a massive increase in connection attempts since 7am EDT
this morning.
Most is being rejected because of not existing users but the majority
that is getting through is hitting
"Sanesecurity.Casino.11228.UNOFFICIAL".
Back skatter? Someone
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing a massive increase in connection attempts since 7am EDT
this morning.
Most is being rejected because of not existing users but the majority
that is getting through is hitting
"Sanesecurity.Casino.11228.UNOFFICIAL".
I'm seeing this across 5 different s
Hi,
I'm seeing a massive increase in connection attempts since 7am EDT this
morning.
Most is being rejected because of not existing users but the majority
that is getting through is hitting "Sanesecurity.Casino.11228.UNOFFICIAL".
I'm seeing this across 5 different servers, all hosting diffe
e standard tests.
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Chris wrote:
> > Has anyone besides me noticed a huge increase in spam in the past 3
> > or 4
> > days? My 80 -100/day has gone to over 400/day since Monday.
What rulesets are you running? My setup is even catching the new vari
triggering is bayes_95 on the standard tests.
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Chris wrote:
> > Has anyone besides me noticed a huge increase in spam in the past 3
> > or 4
> > days? My 80 -100/day has gone to over 400/day since Monday.
What rulesets are you running? My
8:38 PM, Chris wrote:
Has anyone besides me noticed a huge increase in spam in the past 3
or 4
days? My 80 -100/day has gone to over 400/day since Monday.
Am Donnerstag, 16. November 2006 02:38 schrieb Chris:
> Has anyone besides me noticed a huge increase in spam in the past 3 or 4
> days? My 80 -100/day has gone to over 400/day since Monday.
Yes,
I did see the same since Monday. Increase of SA positives of 100% and also a
increase of
Has anyone besides me noticed a huge increase in spam in the past 3 or 4
days? My 80 -100/day has gone to over 400/day since Monday. The top
sources here are:
Report date: Tue Nov 14 21:40:35 CST 2006
Total spams: 455
Total ASNs: 166
Rank Cum % Pct Spams ASN Description
Federico Giannici wrote:
What about combining BlackListing and GreyListing?
I'm experimenting ab it with that right now. I've got my greylisting code to
use a configurable number of checks before it decides if the greylist should be
in use for an incoming connection. The idea is to avoid del
>
> I just upgraded SA from 3.1.0 to the current 3.1.7 via CPAN and
> am finding
> that a huge increase in the amount of spam that's coming in. On the order
> of almost 10 times the number that leaked into my inbox.
>
> Has anyone else run into this behavior? If so, what can I do?
> Configurations
Hoover Chan skrev:
I just upgraded SA from 3.1.0 to the current 3.1.7 via CPAN and am
finding that a huge increase in the amount of spam that's coming in. On
the order of almost 10 times the number that leaked into my inbox.
Has anyone else run into this behavior? If so, what can I do?
Config
I just upgraded SA from 3.1.0 to the current 3.1.7 via CPAN and am finding
that a huge increase in the amount of spam that's coming in. On the order
of almost 10 times the number that leaked into my inbox.
Has anyone else run into this behavior? If so, what can I do?
Configurations are unchang
On Thu, November 2, 2006 20:22, Mark wrote:
> The rest of the invalid HELOs are just non-FQDNSs (like "HELO friend"), or
> IP addresses (not inside braces, like an address literal).
could be a spammer that call his computer "friend" since Microsoft have a
habit of deniding . in the computer name
On Thu, November 2, 2006 17:03, Randy Smith wrote:
> I use policyd and give my users the ability to optout (or optin depending on
> the domain settings) of greylisting if they choose. They can do it through a
> plugin in SquirrelMail so, if they choose, they can turn it off for a few
> minutes to
On Fri, November 3, 2006 11:53, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> Due to the dynamic nature of this test, I guess that at least in the postfix
> case it should need to be somehow embedded into the greylisting server: it
> seems postfix doesn't allow to specify more than one policy server in the
> chec
> Federico Giannici wrote:
> > François Rousseau wrote:
> >> Greylisting is not always good...
> >>
> >> The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have
> >> to be delever fast.
> >
> > I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on
> > them.
> >
>
Federico Giannici wrote:
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have
to be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on
them.
What about combining BlackListing and
> Am Donnerstag, 2. November 2006 16:04 schrieb Amos:
> (...)
> > Actually, it's getting to the extent that some at work are raising
> > questions as to whether our SA setup will be able to
> maintain adequate
> > protection from this growing onslaught.
> >
> > Amos
>
> Only AFTER adequate initial
Federico Giannici wrote:
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have
to be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on
them.
What about combining BlackListing a
> François Rousseau wrote:
> > Greylisting is not always good...
> >
> > The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the
> email have to
> > be delever fast.
>
> I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only
> based on them.
>
> What about combining BlackListing an
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always good...
The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to
be delever fast.
I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on them.
What about combining BlackListing and GreyListing?
I'd like to us
From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 92% (!) of all incoming spam uses an invalid HELO.
>
> 9% pretends to be me in their HELO.
>
Is this 9% included in the above 'invalid HELO' number?
Yes. I should have been more clear about that. 92% fails the HEL
From: "Giampaolo Tomassoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Da: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I do is sort of partial greylisting. If a connection is suspicious
I give them a temp error on my lowest MX but accept them on higher MX
records. So that way most MTA will try a higher MX right away an
From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not an appliance vendor but I run a fornt end spam
filtering service and it's been a struggle. Most of my spam
defense isn't SA though. I'm using Exim rules to do most of the
work and SA gets what's left.
Same h
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Chris wrote:
I usually come home from work to find about 60-80 spam's in my spam folder.
Today upon bringing up the mailer there were over 400! Looks like a large
botnet attack or something. Has anyone else noticed this? I've not finished
looking at the ASN's to see where th
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: donderdag 2 november 2006 19:58
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: BIG increase in spam today
>
>
>
> > 92% (!) of all incoming spam uses an invalid HELO.
> >
&g
Mark wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 2 november 2006 19:00
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: BIG increase in spam today
I'm not an appliance vendor but I run a fornt end spam
filtering service and it
> Da: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What I do is sort of partial greylisting. If a connection is suspicious
> I give them a temp error on my lowest MX but accept them on higher MX
> records. So that way most MTA will try a higher MX right away and it
> doesn't add much of a delay.
Wel
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: donderdag 2 november 2006 19:00
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: BIG increase in spam today
>
>
> I'm not an appliance vendor but I run a fornt end spam
> f
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Fran?ois Rousseau wrote:
> Greylisting is not always good...
>
> The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to be
> delever fast.
>
> For example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have
> access to the internet.
What I do is sort of partial greylisting. If a connection is suspicious
I give them a temp error on my lowest MX but accept them on higher MX
records. So that way most MTA will try a higher MX right away and it
doesn't add much of a delay.
François Rousseau wrote:
Greylisting is not always go
Amos wrote:
On 11/2/06, Debbie D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes Chris I did notice.. my server was attacked with spam yesterday
morning.. it was coming from several different ip, so fast I could
not keep
it quiet
There's been a lot of chatter about this:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.p
On Thursday 02 November 2006 08:42, François Rousseau wrote:
> Greylisting is not always good...
>
> The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to be
> delever fast.
>
> For example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have
> access to the internet.
Greylisting is not always good... The greylisting insert delay in
delevery and sometimes the email have to be delever fast. For
example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have access
to the internet. You can access internet without authentification for 15
Greylisting is not always good... The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have to be delever fast. For example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have access to the internet. You can access internet without authentification for 15 minutes. In this
> On 11/2/06, Debbie D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes Chris I did notice.. my server was attacked with spam yesterday
> > morning.. it was coming from several different ip, so fast I
> could not keep
> > it quiet
> >
>
> There's been a lot of chatter about this:
>
> http://it.slashdot.or
Am Donnerstag, 2. November 2006 16:04 schrieb Amos:
(...)
> Actually, it's getting to the extent that some at work are raising
> questions as to whether our SA setup will be able to maintain adequate
> protection from this growing onslaught.
>
> Amos
Only AFTER adequate initial RBL filtering. Spa
On 11/2/06, Debbie D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes Chris I did notice.. my server was attacked with spam yesterday
morning.. it was coming from several different ip, so fast I could not keep
it quiet
There's been a lot of chatter about this:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/01/13
> "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >>I usually come home from work to find about 60-80 spam's in my spam
> >>folder.
> Today upon bringing up the mailer there were over 400! Looks like a large
> bonnet attack or something. Has anyone else noticed this? I've
> not finished
> look
"Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>I usually come home from work to find about 60-80 spam's in my spam
>>folder.
Today upon bringing up the mailer there were over 400! Looks like a large
bonnet attack or something. Has anyone else noticed this? I've not finished
looking at the Ash's
I usually come home from work to find about 60-80 spam's in my spam folder.
Today upon bringing up the mailer there were over 400! Looks like a large
botnet attack or something. Has anyone else noticed this? I've not finished
looking at the ASN's to see where they're from, but I do notice that
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:08:08PM -0400, Steve Lake wrote:
> Oh, this sounds spectacular. One question. Is there a port on
> Freebsd for this? I don't see one offhand.
No there isn't. However, if you use ports to pull in
p5-String-Approx, graphics/netpbm, graphics/libungif,
graphi
Steve Lake wrote:
Oh, this sounds spectacular. One question. Is there a port on
Freebsd for this? I don't see one offhand. If there is, then that
would assume that all the other necessary ports are present as well. If
not, it'll be a royal b trying to get the nix versions insta
On 2006-10-15, Steve Lake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, this sounds spectacular. One question. Is there a port on
> Freebsd for this? I don't see one offhand. If there is, then that would
> assume that all the other necessary ports are present as well. If not,
> it'll be a roya
As beta it works very well. No crashes etc. It needs fine tuning to
make it more effective, though.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Lake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oh, beta. Hmm, I guess I'm going to have to hold off on
installing it then. I can't risk putting betas on a pr
Oh, beta. Hmm, I guess I'm going to have to hold off on
installing it then. I can't risk putting betas on a production server,
even if it is a small one. Do you know if they'll make an announcement
about it when it's released?
At 11:25 PM 10/14/2006 -0700, jdow wrote:
It's a few li
Steve Lake wrote:
> Oh, this sounds spectacular. One question. Is there a port
> on Freebsd for this? I don't see one offhand. If there is, then
> that would assume that all the other necessary ports are present as
> well. If not, it'll be a royal b trying to get the nix versions
It's a few lines of perl. Download it. Put the pieces in the appropriate
places. Go.
(The direct answer is "of course not." It's still beta and nobody has
done rpms, debs, or ports of it. There might now be a zip or tar file
of it.)
{^_-}
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Lake" <[EMAIL
Oh, this sounds spectacular. One question. Is there a port on
Freebsd for this? I don't see one offhand. If there is, then that would
assume that all the other necessary ports are present as well. If not,
it'll be a royal b trying to get the nix versions installed instead if
no
Use: http://helpdesk.qualispace.com
QualiSpace Community Discussion forum: http://forum.qualispace.com
-Original Message-
From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:35 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Increase in Spam
Clifton Royston
Clifton Royston wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:35:33PM +0530, Suhas (QualiSpace) wrote:
> > I have added those to the local.cf but doesn't seems to be working,
> > what could be the reason?
>
> These rule score adjustments depend on having added some of the SARE
> rules; I'm not sure which
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:08:23PM -0700, Max Clark wrote:
> Thanks - this is exactly what I was looking for.
>
> -Max
>
> On 10/12/06, Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Max Clark wrote:
> >> I have seen an increase in the amount of spam that has made its way
> >> through our filters and in to
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:35:33PM +0530, Suhas (QualiSpace) wrote:
> I have added those to the local.cf but doesn't seems to be working, what
> could be the reason?
These rule score adjustments depend on having added some of the SARE
rules; I'm not sure which set they're from.
-- Clifton
...
56 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Increase in Spam
Hi!
Max Clark said the following, On Friday 13 October 2006 04:57 AM:
> I have seen an increase in the amount of spam that has made its way
> through our filters and in to our inboxes. Most of this seems to be
> the stoc
Hi!
Max Clark said the following, On Friday 13 October 2006 04:57 AM:
I have seen an increase in the amount of spam that has made its way
through our filters and in to our inboxes. Most of this seems to be
the stock pitches that are image attachments. Is there any way to
effectively combat this?
Thanks - this is exactly what I was looking for.
-Max
On 10/12/06, Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Max Clark wrote:
> I have seen an increase in the amount of spam that has made its way
> through our filters and in to our inboxes. Most of this seems to be
> the stock pitches that are image at
Max Clark wrote:
I have seen an increase in the amount of spam that has made its way
through our filters and in to our inboxes. Most of this seems to be
the stock pitches that are image attachments. Is there any way to
effectively combat this?
Look into FuzzyOCR.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassa
I have seen an increase in the amount of spam that has made its way
through our filters and in to our inboxes. Most of this seems to be
the stock pitches that are image attachments. Is there any way to
effectively combat this?
Thanks in advance,
Max
--
Max Clark
http://www.clarksys.com
pop3 servers I use.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Anton Krall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'jdow'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: 2005 August, 20, Saturday 02:14
Subject: RE: Sudden Increase in Spam Mails
This is weird.. I don't know if it has s
RBL hits?
|-Original Message-
|From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Viernes, 19 de Agosto de 2005 05:21 p.m.
|To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
|Subject: Re: Sudden Increase in Spam Mails
|
|SURBL, tweaked scores for image only, and some custom
|recipient rules have kept it to virtually z
Im not using Bayes, how do I enable that and/or use sa-learn?
|-Original Message-
|From: Matthew Yette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Viernes, 19 de Agosto de 2005 03:46 p.m.
|To: Anton Krall; Matthias Fuhrmann; users@spamassassin.apache.org
|Subject: RE: Sudden Increase in Spam Mails
SURBL, tweaked scores for image only, and some custom recipient rules
have kept it to virtually zero here.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno S. Delbono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Anton Krall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: 2005 August, 19, Friday 11:37
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like
amavis
and SA are not caching a lot anymore...
Haven't seen it here, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Different people
seem to get different kinds of spam.
Actually in the last tw
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:35 PM
To: 'Matthias Fuhrmann'; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Sudden Increase in Spam Mails
Im getting very low scores.. Smapm emails are passing thru, containing
just
1 big jpg inside or text with one html link... These
Anton Krall wrote:
Im getting very low scores.. Smapm emails are passing thru, containing just
1 big jpg inside or text with one html link... These spam could easily be
confused with normal email...
Which files would I need to post here?
- The mail with full content headers + sa score
- SA v
PROTECTED]
|Sent: Viernes, 19 de Agosto de 2005 12:10 p.m.
|To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
|Subject: Re: Sudden Increase in Spam Mails
|
|On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Anton Krall wrote:
|
|> Guys.
|>
|> Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like
|> amavis and SA are n
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Anton Krall wrote:
> Guys.
>
> Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like amavis
> and SA are not caching a lot anymore...
>
> Any ideas?
does it mean, there are no tags set in the header of emails, or just low
scorings?
no tags means, there were time
> Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like amavis
> and SA are not caching a lot anymore...
Haven't seen it here, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Different people
seem to get different kinds of spam.
Loren
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
