On Oct 28, 2014 at 22:10 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
=>On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
=>Reindl Harald wrote:
=>
=>> frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
=>> procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
=>> should somebody step in and main
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 22:10 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
> > procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
> > should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is forced to use
> > it
>
> I use Email:
On 10/28/2014 7:10 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is f
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
> procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
> should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is forced to use
> it
I use Email::Filter, no
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:39 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 10/28/2014 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
somewhere. It s
On 10/28/2014 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Procmail isn't dead. However, the Procmail w
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Procmail isn't dead. However, the Procmail website is simply in
an awful and atrocious state. I
On Oct 28, 2014 at 07:40 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
=>On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
=>Ian Zimmerman wrote:
=>
=>> Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real
=>> standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
=>
=>It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible a
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:43:04 -0700
jdow wrote:
jdow> That is hardly a compelling reason to change from procmail to
jdow> perl, for me or others with working procmail systems. You seem to
jdow> be advocating handing me perl and turning me loose after ripping
jdow> procmail out of my hands. That do
On 2014-10-28 11:24, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:24:37 -0700
jdow wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't mean a consummate chef need fear them!
Nonetheless one should keep bare knife switches away from said chef
lest he forget that being an consummate expert in one field does not
ma
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:24:37 -0700
jdow wrote:
> > Sure, but that doesn't mean a consummate chef need fear them!
> Nonetheless one should keep bare knife switches away from said chef
> lest he forget that being an consummate expert in one field does not
> make him even barely competent in other
On 2014-10-28 06:09, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:28:19 +0100
"Andrzej A. Filip" wrote:
It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl. I
have very unusual filtering requirements (for example, rules that
change depending on time-of-day or depending on who has
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:28:19 +0100
"Andrzej A. Filip" wrote:
> > It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl. I
> > have very unusual filtering requirements (for example, rules that
> > change depending on time-of-day or depending on who has the support
> > pager that week) t
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
> Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real standard
>> (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
>
> It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl. I have very
> unusual fil
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real
> standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl.
I have very unusual filtering requirements (for example, rule
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:43:41 -0400,
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
David> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
David> If you use SpamAssassin, you probably like Perl, so I would
David> recommend Email::Filter instead. It's far more flexible than
David> procmail and lets you
Am 27.10.2014 um 21:04 schrieb Daniel Staal:
> --As of October 27, 2014 8:29:52 PM +0100, Robert Schetterer is alleged
> to have said:
>
>> by the way
>>
>> http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/34896/
>>
>> always have a shellshock patched system these days with postfix/procmail
>
> --As for the re
--As of October 27, 2014 8:29:52 PM +0100, Robert Schetterer is alleged to
have said:
by the way
http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/34896/
always have a shellshock patched system these days with postfix/procmail
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Interesting. I dug a bit further out of curios
Am 27.10.2014 um 19:55 schrieb Bob Proulx:
> David F. Skoll wrote:
>> "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>>> Procmail has some weird syntax
>>
>> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
>
> That isn't really a fair assessment of procmail. It is like saying
> that 'cp' is unmaintai
David F. Skoll wrote:
> "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> > Procmail has some weird syntax
>
> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
That isn't really a fair assessment of procmail. It is like saying
that 'cp' is unmaintained abandonware. The original authors no longer
main
On 10/24/2014 8:43 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
...I would recommend Email::Filter instead.
Definitely will try it out! Thanks.
Bart Schaefer writes:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> 1) Does it matter that I have autolearn turned off in spamassassin
>> conf filt 'local.cf' while doing my sandbox work
>
> No, it doesn't. In fact it's probably better that way because SA
> won't waste time updat
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> 1) Does it matter that I have autolearn turned off in spamassassin
> conf filt 'local.cf' while doing my sandbox work
No, it doesn't. In fact it's probably better that way because SA
won't waste time updating the bayes database with the mi
2009/4/28 Robert Ober :
> It was global and I want it to stay global. The old procmailrc is:
>
> DROPPRIVS=yes
>
> :0fw
> | /usr/bin/spamc
That's a global config, but you're running it per-user due to the
DROPPRIVS line. fyi.
> All I want to do now is have all the identified spam(X-Spam-Status:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Robert Ober wrote:
All I want to do now is have all the identified spam(X-Spam-Status: Yes
?) go to a global file instead of delivered to the users. The global
spam file will be readable by only myself and management. Company owned
systems, so no privacy implied nor shou
On 4/28/09 3:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Ober wrote:
On 4/28/09 11:34 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
It was global and I want it to stay global. The old procmailrc is:
DROPPRIVS=yes
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
No .procmailrc for the users. And
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Ober wrote:
> On 4/28/09 11:34 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> >> DROPPRIVS=yes
> >
> > procmail is being run on behalf of the recipient.
>
> Makes sense, any way to make sure the log is writeable other that to
> put all the users in a group?
Ah, ju
On 4/28/09 11:34 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
DROPPRIVS=yes
procmail is being run on behalf of the recipient.
Makes sense, any way to make sure the log is writeable other that to
put all the users in a group?
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
VERBOSE=yes
LOGABSTRACT=all
MAILDIR is not
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:07 -0500, Robert Ober wrote:
> filter in Outlook. Problem is that some users are setup to have their
> email forwarded to their cellphone/blackberry and the spam is in that
> inbox. So I found some articles and decided to have the spam go to a
> file. The following i
On 01.07.08 08:48, Philippe Couas wrote:
> I have add procmail to my config to avoid most spam, but il delete others
> mails too.
Do not drop spam below some sane score (8 or 10).
Configure spamassassin and teach bayes filter properly.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fan
Hallo Michael,
Am 2008-01-03 11:53:41, schrieb Michael Bartlett:
> Hi all,
>
> Wonder if you could help me, I'm trying to get my procmailrc to move
> all mail marked as spam into another folder - but it doesn't seem to
> work. I understand that this could be a procmail problem - but just
> wanted
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:53 +, Michael Bartlett wrote:
> Wonder if you could help me, I'm trying to get my procmailrc to move
> all mail marked as spam into another folder - but it doesn't seem to
> work. I understand that this could be a procmail problem - but just
> wanted to confirm that may
On Fri, November 17, 2006 10:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi list
> I have postfix with a virtual domain, where I have to create a .procmailrc
> file for procmail? ( I have to create a file or a directory? )
> How to configure a system wide?
> Thanks
>
I recommend searching on the internet f
On Sunday 19 February 2006 19:03, jdow wrote:
>From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> On Sunday 19 February 2006 03:45, jdow wrote:
>>>From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>===8<---
>PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
>PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
>
>:0 fw
>>
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sunday 19 February 2006 03:45, jdow wrote:
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===8<---
PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
:0 fw
* ^List-Id: .*(spamassassin\.apache.\org)
| formail -A "$PROCMAILHEADER an SA
On Sunday 19 February 2006 03:45, jdow wrote:
>From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>>===8<---
>>>PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
>>>PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
>>>
>>>:0 fw
>>>
>>>* ^List-Id: .*(spamassassin\.apache.\org)
>>>
>>>| formail -A "$PROCMAILHEADER an SA list. Mail not pr
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===8<---
PROCMAILMATCH="X-Procmail: Matched on"
PROCMAILHEADER="X-Procmail: "
:0 fw
* ^List-Id: .*(spamassassin\.apache.\org)
| formail -A "$PROCMAILHEADER an SA list. Mail not processed."
|
:0 fw
*
^TO_:.*([EMAIL PROTECTED]|users\.spamassassin\.apach
On Saturday 18 February 2006 20:27, jdow wrote:
>From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Greetings, I'm seeing this in the procmail log occasionally
>===
>From gene Sat Feb 18 12:32:20 2006
> Subject: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?
> Folder: /var/mail/gene
>4539
>formail
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Greetings, I'm seeing this in the procmail log occasionally
===
From gene Sat Feb 18 12:32:20 2006
Subject: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?
Folder: /var/mail/gene
4539
formail: Invalid field-name: " SpamAssassin user list"
Usage: f
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:39:58PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> formail: Invalid field-name: " SpamAssassin user list"
> is this anything to worry about?
This isn't really a SpamAssassin question, but it looks like you have an error
in your procmail config related to formail. I would definitely l
> (Q) Given that this RH machine runs only POP3 (management will not
> allow anything else) how do I set up my /etc/procmailrc file such that
> all mail that is marked as SPAM is put into the users $HOME/mail/spam
> file (they can then login using SSH and use Pine to look at SPAM if
$LOGNAME i
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Outlook and Outlook Express will filter on words in the subject, so a
> > subject tag will work easily (Tools->Message Rules). I'm not familiar
> > enough to know whether you can filter on an arbitrary header, though.
>
> You can with Outlook using var
> Outlook and Outlook Express will filter on words in the subject, so a
> subject tag will work easily (Tools->Message Rules). I'm not familiar
> enough to know whether you can filter on an arbitrary header, though.
You can with Outlook using various supremely inobvious but readily available
meth
Chris Barnes wrote:
This is really the key - from a SA standpoint, the best you can do is
mark the message as spam and let the MUA (Outlook) deal with putting
things into the proper folders on the user's machine (in the .pst file).
I don't know OL well enough, but I suspect that there is likel
Mark Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Q) Given that this RH machine runs only POP3 (management will not
> allow anything else)
This is really the key - from a SA standpoint, the best you can do is
mark the message as spam and let the MUA (Outlook) deal with putting
things into the proper f
Am Freitag, 22. Juli 2005 08:15 schrieb jdow:
> There generally is no specific procmail log file. It is generally in one
> of the mail log files in /var/log/.
Yes. But you can create user user specific lof file with
LOGFILE=$HOME/.procmail.log
Thomas
--
icq:133073900
http://www.t-arend.de
pg
Never mind - Earthlink had an email stick in its craw or else Fetchmail
did not like it at all.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2005 July, 21, Thursday 23:16
Subject: Re: Procmail for site wide usage
> You are developing a sev
You are developing a severe stutter.
{o.o}
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2005 July, 21, Thursday 20:40
Subject: Re: Procmail for site wide usage
There generally is no specific procmail log file. It is generally in one
of the mail log files in /var/log/.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Am Freitag, 22. Juli 2005 01:10 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Mark Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 7/21/05, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mark Williams wrote on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:49:04 +0100:
> > > The issue is how I get
> > > procmail to put SPAM mail in $HOME/mail/spam for each of t
From: "Mark Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/21/05, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark Williams wrote on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:49:04 +0100:
>
> > The issue is how I get
> > procmail to put SPAM mail in $HOME/mail/spam for each of the users.
>
> That should be explained in the spamassa
From: "Mark Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> See details:
>
> On 7/21/05, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mark Williams wrote on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:45:30 +0100:
> >
> > > (Q) Given that this RH machine runs only POP3 (management will not
> > > allow anything else) how do I set up my /e
On 7/21/05, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Williams wrote on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:49:04 +0100:> The issue is how I get> procmail to put SPAM mail in $HOME/mail/spam for each of the users.
That should be explained in the spamassassin install readme, I'm sure.Apart from that:http://wiki
Mark Williams wrote on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:49:04 +0100:
> The issue is how I get
> procmail to put SPAM mail in $HOME/mail/spam for each of the users.
That should be explained in the spamassassin install readme, I'm sure.
Apart from that:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FindPage?action=full
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2005 18:49 schrieb Mark Williams:
[ .. ]
>
> Please don't get too hung up on the decisions that have been made -
> they are out of my control (hence my not going into depth on them). I
> only mentioned it to avoid people saying install this and install that
> or install IMA
See details:
On 7/21/05, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Williams wrote on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:45:30 +0100:
>
> > (Q) Given that this RH machine runs only POP3 (management will not
> > allow anything else) how do I set up my /etc/procmailrc file such that
> > all mail that is marke
Mark Williams wrote on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:45:30 +0100:
> (Q) Given that this RH machine runs only POP3 (management will not
> allow anything else) how do I set up my /etc/procmailrc file such that
> all mail that is marked as SPAM is put into the users $HOME/mail/spam
> file (they can then log
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello,
>
> I set up spamassassin to work with procmail according to instructions.
> Here is what is in ~/.procmailrc:
>
> #SPAM ASSASSIN SECTION
>
> :0fw: spamd.lock
> * < 256000
> | /usr/sbin/spamd
^ The spamd tool is run as
Jake Colman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/25/2005
10:12:08 PM:
[snip]
> How can I limit the number of sendmails anyway?
My server gets very
> overloaded in those circumstances. In general, what happens
if there are
> more sendmails than there are spamd processes?
>
You can try confCONNECTI
> "LW" == Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Clearly, some of my emails are skipping SA!
LW> Which version were you running, again? This was a known-to-happen
LW> 'feature' with the 2.6x series, although nobody ever really figured
LW> out why. There are conditions where
> Clearly, some of my emails are skipping SA!
Which version were you running, again? This was a known-to-happen 'feature'
with the 2.6x series, although nobody ever really figured out why. There
are conditions where it can happen on 3.0.1 or .2, I believe, if the spamd
children all get themselve
>
> These suggestions are basic things for most on this list, but if you are
> new to using these tools it will save you some look up and experimenting
> time.
>
> Good Luck!!!
>
> Greg
>
One thing I failed to mention is that you must make sure you have enough
disk space to save the file. I
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 09:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I use spamassassin 2.63 on fedora core 2.
> I have two problems :
>
> 1. Spamassassin does not flag all spam, although muy level is at 3. Sometimes
> he
> doesn't even have ONE hit on a spam message !!!.
>
> 2. I want to move t
At 10:53 AM 11/4/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use spamassassin 2.63 on fedora
core 2.
I have two problems :
1. Spamassassin does not flag all spam, although muy level is at 3.
Sometimes he
doesn't even have ONE hit on a spam message !!!.
You're running a rather old version of SA, one which is
65 matches
Mail list logo
