On Monday, July 14, 2008, 10:01:34 AM, Skip Brott wrote:
> I am seeing an
> increase in spam reaching my end users.
>
> Is there something more that I can be doing? Maybe I need to start updating
> from some additional rule sets?
Do you have network tests enabled?
What kinds of spams are getti
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 16:52 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 13:01, "Skip Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This was probably discussed at some point, but I haven't been
> > getting emails from the list for some time.
> >
> > The dates I see on all my sare rule sets are in Ja
On Jul 14, 2008, at 13:01, "Skip Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This was probably discussed at some point, but I haven't been
getting emails from the list for some time.
The dates I see on all my sare rule sets are in January when I moved
to 3.2.4. My updates_spamassassin_org.cf file i
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:46:13AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Arthur Dent wrote:
>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I have just upgraded from SA 3.2.4 to 3.2.5 and ran sa-update to get the
>> latest rulesets (which also happens every night via a cronjob).
>>
>> I got the following errors:
>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Arthur Dent wrote:
Hello all.
I have just upgraded from SA 3.2.4 to 3.2.5 and ran sa-update to get the
latest rulesets (which also happens every night via a cronjob).
I got the following errors:
[errors chopped]
Stopping spamd:
> >
> > This MY_CID.. rules are part of "70_sare_stocks_cf"
> > Had to these problems, I am considering to disactivate
> these ...CID..
> > rules.
>
> CID means that the email contains an inline image.
>
> STYLE indicates a pair of empty style tags
>
> ARIAL2 is a 2 point arial font tag
>
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
> What, exactly , do the SARE rules "MY_CID" ?
>
> We have too many false positives using this rules..
>
> Content analysis details: (7.1 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> --
> --
Max de Mendizábal wrote:
Hi Max, hi all!
Sorry for the thread hijacking...
I tested the rules with spamassassin --lint and everything is OK, but
stops scoring.
Perhaps you could provide your rulesdujour config?
which Version?
Maybe some old "prex" rules (RulesDuJour)?
Max de Mendizábal
Ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the thread hijacking...
I tested the rules with spamassassin --lint and everything is OK, but
stops scoring.
Max de Mendizábal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subdirección de Informática
Universidad Pedagógica Nacional
Carretera al Ajusco No. 24
Col. Hér
From: "Robert Menschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SARE's URI rules files and HTML rules files have been updated.
URI rules files were updated early this morning. They had a --lint
error in them at first, but that has been corrected. The HTML files
have been updated this evening (and may not be avai
SARE's URI rules files and HTML rules files have been updated.
URI rules files were updated early this morning. They had a --lint
error in them at first, but that has been corrected. The HTML files
have been updated this evening (and may not be available for download
for another 40-60 minutes).
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Robert Menschel wrote:
>> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
>> been updated.
>
> Can someone mention whats the difference between:
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
> and
> http://www.rulesemporiu
> >>Whitelist appears to be a newer file regardless of what the headers
> >>say. It includes more sites in its whitelist. It appears whitelist_rcvd
> >>is obsolete. It's not mentioned on the SARE Rules page.
> >
> > These were announced on the list about a week ago.
Whitelist_from_rcvd.cf
> > is NE
Loren Wilton wrote:
Robert Menschel wrote:
Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
been updated.
Can someone mention whats the difference between:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
and
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.c
> > Robert Menschel wrote:
> >> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
> >> been updated.
> >
> > Can someone mention whats the difference between:
> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
> > and
> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelis
From: "Cami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert Menschel wrote:
Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
been updated.
Can someone mention whats the difference between:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
and
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whi
Robert Menschel wrote:
Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
been updated.
Can someone mention whats the difference between:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
and
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
Cami
Robert Menschel wrote:
SARE's General Subject rules files and the Whitelist rules files have
been updated.
Note that RDJ has not yet been updated for these two new files.
RDJ is now updated. The new ruleset names are: SARE_WHITELIST_SPF and
SARE_WHITELIST_RCVD
Chris Thiele
Rolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/26/2005
09:17:49 AM:
>
> On 26/09/2005, at 3:07 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
>
> > SARE's General Subject rules files and the Whitelist rules files
have
> > been updated.
> >
>
> I get from --lint:
>
> Failed to run header SpamAssassin tests, skipping some:
> -Original Message-
> From: Rolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:18 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Cc: Robert Menschel
> Subject: Re: [SARE] rules update
>
>
> On 26/09/2005, at 3:07 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
>
&g
On 26/09/2005, at 3:07 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
SARE's General Subject rules files and the Whitelist rules files have
been updated.
I get from --lint:
Failed to run header SpamAssassin tests, skipping some: Global symbol
"$C" requires explicit package name at
/etc/spamassassin/70_sare
From: "Robert Menschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just a quick note that SARE's "specific" rules file has been updated.
This will begin to help catch the recent wave of obfuscating drug
spam.
More rules file updates to follow.
Documentation concerning specific.cf at
http://www.rulesemporium.com/ru
Just a quick note that SARE's HTML rule set files have been updated.
Also minor updates to the Subject (genlsubj), URI, and obfuscation
(obfu) rule set files.
Documentation for these rules files are at
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm
Bob Menschel
>-Original Message-
>From: George Georgalis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 1:10 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI
>
>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: George Georgalis
&
>>-Original Message-
>>From: George Georgalis
>>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:15 AM
>>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI
>
>Regarding the comment on too much disclosure in the logs, there is
>nothing keep
inal Message-
>From: George Georgalis
>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:15 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI
Regarding the comment on too much disclosure in the logs, there is
nothing keeping spammers from diff-ing the cf files, I would refer
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 08:33:10PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
>
>I have updated the RDJ snippet for uri.cf to point to the new uri0.cf
>file, and added snippets for the other files as well. I believe I've
>done this correctly, but as I don't use and cannot test RDJ, I can't
>be sure.
I'm overl
From: "Michael Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:35:53AM -0800, jdow wrote:
>>
>> If you can duplicate this we can toss a BK bug report into the system.
>> I suspect it may have a relationship to the apparent memory leaks that
>> are only sort of fixed with 3.0.2.
>>
>
> Are
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:35:53AM -0800, jdow wrote:
>
> If you can duplicate this we can toss a BK bug report into the system.
> I suspect it may have a relationship to the apparent memory leaks that
> are only sort of fixed with 3.0.2.
>
Are you talking about this bug?
http://bugzilla.spamas
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >> Are you saying that using spamd/c gives you problems for
> >users who have
> >> their own local rules? Just curious as to
>-Original Message-
>From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 4:17 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SARE rules timing out?
>
>
>From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> Are
That is very likely if you have not told it a valid DNS server for
use with the DNS tests.
Can you fire up a local caching only name server?
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "MIKE YRABEDRA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am using SA 3.0.2, CGPSA 1.4, CommunigatePro, Mac OS X
>
> When the custo
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are you saying that using spamd/c gives you problems for users who have
> their own local rules? Just curious as to what problem?
>
> --Chris
I have not migrated Loren over to the new machine because there is a
problem HERE with spamd. I set it down
> When the custom rules are present, process times are ranging from 12-45
> seconds per message. This is causing a bottleneck.
>
> It looks like it may be a DNS lookup issue, but I can't be sure.
Ah. If this is a general thing where all messages slow down, then I have to
agree - you probably need
> Does anyone know if any of the SARE rules are causing timeouts? My server
> was bogging down really bad. I removed the custom rules and that seems to
> have fixed it. Only thing is, I don't know which one is causing the
problem.
In general timeouts tend to get caused by net tests. I can't recal
January 06, 2005 1:19 PM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: SARE rules timing out?
>>
>>
>> The usual solution is more memory.
>> You need to tell us what version of SpamAssassin you are running, how
>> much memory you have in the machine, and h
>Subject: Re: SARE rules timing out?
>
>
>The usual solution is more memory.
>You need to tell us what version of SpamAssassin you are running, how
>much memory you have in the machine, and how you are using SpamAssassin
>including the options. Your mail load will also make a
The usual solution is more memory.
You need to tell us what version of SpamAssassin you are running, how
much memory you have in the machine, and how you are using SpamAssassin
including the options. Your mail load will also make a difference.
The SARE rules do consume a lot of memory. But they do
38 matches
Mail list logo
