On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 08:10 +0530, Suhag Desai wrote:
> Aug 25 08:07:12 spd spamd[3776]: spamd: clean message (4.0/5.0) for clamav:46
> in 10.7 seconds, 2792 bytes.
> Aug 25 08:07:12 spd spamd[3776]: spamd: result: . 4 -
> ALL_TRUSTED,HTML_MESSAGE,LOCAL_DEMONSTRATION_RULE,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY,TVD_SPA
de]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 7:40 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: After upgrade the SA to 3.3.1, Mail scanning stop working partially
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 08:16 +0530, Suhag Desai wrote:
> After upgrade the SpamAssassin Server version to 3.3.1, my mail
> scanning sto
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 08:16 +0530, Suhag Desai wrote:
> After upgrade the SpamAssassin Server version to 3.3.1, my mail
> scanning stop working partially.
> Below is the setting for local.cf
>
> rewrite_header Subject SPAM
> report_safe 1
> required_score 5.0
> use_bayes 1
> bayes_auto_l
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 07:16 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
> > After upgrade the SpamAssassin Server version to 3.3.1, my mail scanning
> > stop
> > working partially.
>
> This is a known bug.
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6419
It is rather unlikely, this would be the r
Still not clear from the link
-Original Message-
From: Daniel McDonald [mailto:dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:46 PM
To: spamassassin
Subject: Re: After upgrade the SA to 3.3.1, Mail scanning stop working
partially
On 8/22/10 9:46 PM, "Suhag Desai&qu
On 8/22/10 9:46 PM, "Suhag Desai" wrote:
> After upgrade the SpamAssassin Server version to 3.3.1, my mail scanning stop
> working partially.
>
This is a known bug.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6419
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281
Cheers Mike,
Just the ticket.
Paul
On Saturday 20 November 2004 17:01, Michael W Cocke wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:58:48 +, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> > I have just upgraded my SA from 2.63 to 3.0.1, this all running on SuSE
> > 9.1 Pro.
> >
> >But I must have cocked something up, but
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:58:48 +, you wrote:
>Hi all,
> I have just upgraded my SA from 2.63 to 3.0.1, this all running on SuSE 9.1
>Pro.
>
>But I must have cocked something up, but as to what I have no clue. This is
>where the community can offer some insight, Please..
>
>Upon restarting
Marcos Saint'Anna wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:44:01 -0300:
> As you may see... the configuration files are the same, also the
> binaries are using the same version.
>
So, you are getting slightly different results with spamc and spamassassin
plus the main difference about the USER_IN_WHIT
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Marcos Saint'Anna wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:18:19 -0300:
>
> > I've already tried to run SA with -D option, but got no answer at
> > all...
> >
>
> So, if you pipe one of those messages with USER_IN_WHITELIST thru
> spamassassin -D (not spamd!)
Marcos Saint'Anna wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:18:19 -0300:
> I've already tried to run SA with -D option, but got no answer at
> all...
>
So, if you pipe one of those messages with USER_IN_WHITELIST thru
spamassassin -D (not spamd!) it is *not* marked with USER_IN_WHITELIST? If
so, I'd th
At 08:42 PM 10/9/2004 -0300, Marcos Saint'Anna wrote:
SPAM... So I noticed that almost all headers had a "USER_IN_WHITELIST"
in it.
---
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-88.6 required=5.0 tests=BR_RECEIVED_SPAMMER,
FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML,HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,
HTML_TAG_E
12 matches
Mail list logo
