On 21 Nov 2018, at 4:04, @lbutlr wrote:
The page at https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ImproveAccuracy lists
Sought rules as recommended. The link leads to
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SoughtRules which states "this is
no longer active, and should not be used.”
Fixed.
Axb wrote:
> SOUGHT rule updates are working again.
That is truly wonderful news! The last update I had was from
2011-11-10. Looking forward to the revivied goodness!
> Thanks JM!
Yes. Thanks!
Bob
On 03/07/2012 03:47 PM, Leveau Stanislas wrote:
Hi
I have the same problem but no idea
Regards
Stan
Le 07/03/12, Andrea gabellini - SC a
écrit :
Hello,
I noticed that sought rules are not updated from many weeks?
Is the project alive?
FYI:
SOUGHT rule updates are working again.
Thank
On 03/07, Andrea gabellini - SC wrote:
> I noticed that sought rules are not updated from many weeks?
>
> Is the project alive?
There was no mention of intentionally killing it off, so my guess is it
accidentally broke and wasn't noticed.
It hasn't been updated since 2012-01-02, and is supposed
Hi
I have the same problem but no idea
Regards
Stan
Le 07/03/12, Andrea gabellini - SC a
écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that sought rules are not updated from many weeks?
>
> Is the project alive?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrea
>
>
Mynabbler wrote:
>
> Is it just me, or is the last sought_rules update November 9th?
>
Sorry about the double posts... It was posted using Nabble, which returned
500 errors, and yet still posted the message. Oops.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Sought-rules-revisited-t
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:58 -0400, pseudonymous Alex wrote:
> I see that recently Justin made some changes to the svn rules for
> this, but I wasn't sure if that was going to be reflected in the
> channel?
Yes, it will eventually. See the other direct reply by Justin from Sat
to the post you repli
Hi,
>> Wait a sec, I'm confused about this. "JM_SOUGHT_2 hitting on every
>> legit Facebook message" on dev@ list February 17th 2011. If the SOUGHT
>> channel was being overridden by the sa-update rules, how would this
>> problem appear from the SOUGHT channel? Doesn't this suggest that
>> spam
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 10:56 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 8:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
> > hack to bend the alphabet.
>
> Would it be worthwhile to change the main code instead? Rather than
> making a
"Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote in message
news:1307971023.4766.8.camel@monkey...
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:21 +0200, Jezz wrote:
> Yes, works. Regardless of using symlinks, a copy of the cf file, or
> include'ing it from another config file -- the target will be read
> again.
>
> But don't just t
On 6/10/2011 8:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> Until the frequent re-scoring and stock rules updates are working
> properly, you will have to use the dedicated channel, if you want the
> SOUGHT rules. And even after that, if you want the freshest patterns,
> you still need the sought channel
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:21 +0200, Jezz wrote:
> > Yes, works. Regardless of using symlinks, a copy of the cf file, or
> > include'ing it from another config file -- the target will be read
> > again.
> >
> > But don't just take my word for it -- see for yourself!
> >
> > spamassassin --lint -D co
"Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote in message
news:1307824487.4844.55.camel@monkey...
Yes, works. Regardless of using symlinks, a copy of the cf file, or
include'ing it from another config file -- the target will be read
again.
But don't just take my word for it -- see for yourself!
spamassassin
On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 6/12/2011 12:32 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2011 10:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
> -- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were being checked in there
> w
On 6/12/2011 12:32 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/11/2011 10:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
-- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were being checked in there
was to make their accuracy visible in ruleqa. It's been months s
On 6/11/2011 10:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
-- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were being checked in there
was to make their accuracy visible in ruleqa. It's been months since
I've looked at that, so it's needless. I'l
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jezz wrote:
So here's the thing: I'm actually running SA on Windows, via the MDaemon
mail server. So I can't so easily create a symlink as you've described.
http://lifehacker.com/5496652/how-to-use-symlinks-in-windows
But then, this is just FYI as Justin is fixing the pro
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:38 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> > > Would renaming 20_sought_fraud.cf to 99_sought_fraud.cf, putting
> > > 20_sought_fraud.cf (from the yelp.org channel) after 72_active.cf (the
> > > default and assumed older SA rules) solve this problem?
> Is Lawrence's suggestion s
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 12:50 +0100, Arthur Dent wrote:
> drwxrwxr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jun 11 12:19 sought_rules_yerp_org
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 root root 120 Jun 11 12:19 sought_rules_yerp_org.cf
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jun 11 12:17 updates_spamassassin_org
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2599 Jun 11 12:
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 20:01 +0200, Jezz wrote:
> So currently I'm thinking about this plan: I could create a file called
> 'zz_sought.cf' and place it into my /rules directory where it's safe. AFAIK
> the files in here would be parsed *after* the files inside the
> /default_rules directory - at
guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
-- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were being checked in there
was to make their accuracy visible in ruleqa. It's been months since
I've looked at that, so it's needless. I'll remove them from svn
asap.
--j.
2011/6/11
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 23:13 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> Wait a sec, I'm confused about this. "JM_SOUGHT_2 hitting on every
> legit Facebook message" on dev@ list February 17th 2011. If the SOUGHT
> channel was being overridden by the sa-update rules, how would this
> problem appear from
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 06:45 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 6/10/11 1:14 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > This merely requires a re-ordering hack, though. A symlink zzz_sought.cf
> > in your rule updates dir, pointing at the channel generated cf should
> > do. These channel cf files only hol
On 6/10/2011 11:13 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Wait a sec, I'm confused about this. "JM_SOUGHT_2 hitting on every legit
Facebook message" on dev@ list February 17th 2011. If the SOUGHT channel
was being overridden by the sa-update rules, how would this problem
appear from the SOUGHT channel? Doe
"Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote in message
news:1307726044.7307.29.camel@monkey...
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 18:07 +0200, Jezz wrote:
I recently upgraded SpamAssassin from 3.2.5 to 3.3.1, and I discovered
that
the JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_x rules are now included within the official ruleset,
within the 72_ac
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/10/11 9:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
spamassassin -D config --lint 2>&1 | less
so, one MORE option, we don't need to add the symlink to crontab?
Jun 11 06:39:13.419 [71425] dbg: config: read file
/var/db/spamassassin/3.003001/sought_ru
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 06:45 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 6/10/11 9:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > spamassassin -D config --lint 2>&1 | less
> so, one MORE option, we don't need to add the symlink to crontab?
>
> Jun 11 06:39:13.419 [71425] dbg: config: read file
> /var/db/spamassas
On 6/11/11 6:45 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/10/11 9:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
spamassassin -D config --lint 2>&1 | less
so, one MORE option, we don't need to add the symlink to crontab?
Jun 11 06:39:13.419 [71425] dbg: config: read file
/var/db/spamassassin/3.003001/sought_rules
On 6/10/11 9:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
spamassassin -D config --lint 2>&1 | less
so, one MORE option, we don't need to add the symlink to crontab?
Jun 11 06:39:13.419 [71425] dbg: config: read file
/var/db/spamassassin/3.003001/sought_rules_yerp_org.cf
Jun 11 06:39:13.419 [71425] dbg:
Wait a sec, I'm confused about this. "JM_SOUGHT_2 hitting on every
legit Facebook message" on dev@ list February 17th 2011. If the SOUGHT
channel was being overridden by the sa-update rules, how would this
problem appear from the SOUGHT channel? Doesn't this suggest that
spamassassin was suc
On 2011-06-11 3:38, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 3:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 22:40 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> Would renaming 20_sought_fraud.cf to 99_sought_fraud.cf, putting
> 20_sought_fraud.cf (from the yelp.org channel) after 72_active.cf (the
> default and assumed older SA rules) solve this problem?
No, because they are in sub-directorie
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:54 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
> > hack to bend the alphabet.
>
> It is not entirely clear to me, what exactly are you supposed to rename
On 6/10/2011 3:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the
reorder
> hack to bend the alphabet.
It
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
> hack to bend the alphabet.
It is not entirely clear to me, what ex
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
hack to bend the alphabet.
It is not entirely clear to me, what exactly are you supposed to
rename for the reorder hack?
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
hack to bend the alphabet.
It is not entirely clear to me, what exactly are you supposed to rename
for the reorder hack? You have to do it every time you sa-update?
War
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 19:32 -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 6/10/11 5:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > While I do agree this is an issue -- at the very least, all third-party
> > sought channel docs should include that note -- I do not agree that this
> > is worrisome. The negative im
On 6/10/11 5:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
While I do agree this is an issue -- at the very least, all third-party
sought channel docs should include that note -- I do not agree that this
is worrisome. The negative impact basically boils down to "the channel
does not work".
so, the 'best p
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 11:19 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 7:14 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Now, the bad thing about this is that updates_spamassassin_org.cf is
> > lexically *after* sought_rules_yerp_org.cf in your rule update dir.
> > Which means the more recent rules in t
On 6/10/2011 7:14 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
You are generally correct about the numerical (actually lexical) order,
though it doesn't apply to the files you are talking about. The
mentioned 72_active and 20_sought are in different sa-update channels.
Now, the bad thing about this is that u
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 18:07 +0200, Jezz wrote:
> I recently upgraded SpamAssassin from 3.2.5 to 3.3.1, and I discovered that
> the JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_x rules are now included within the official ruleset,
> within the 72_active.cf file.
>
> However, as far as I can tell, these rules seem to be diffe
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 16:05 -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> > Btw, the three rules JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_{1,2,3} have a score of zero
> > as per Justin's request (Bug 6155 c 38, c72, c89, c124).
> > Not sure if people using the channel realize that scores
> > need to be bumped up. Btw, I prefer to avoid t
On 2010/02/01 10:30 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
Actually back since Jan 6. :) Re-viewed about 1k fraud spam the
following days, for the Sought Fraud sub-set.
Btw, the three rules JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_{1,2,3} have a score of zero
as per Justin's request (Bug 61
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Jonas wrote:
But for us as well as bowie, the sought rules are hitting significantly
less mails than they used to.
Makes me wonder if the spammers have put some work into identifying the
spamtraps used to feed the sought rules generator? Have the sought
maintainers noticed
> I understand the problem with the stats program and FP/FN, but the last
> time I looked at the stats for sought (which was admittedly quite a while
> ago), a couple of the rules were showing in my top 20 spam rules.
> Now I have to go all the way down to 111 to find the first one.
I would like t
On 02/03/2010 09:18 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
The corpus-quality for that masscheck doesn't look too bad though:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100201-r905213-n/T_JM_SOUGHT_1/detail?s_corpus=1#corpus
That day was fine. The weekly masscheck however had only 50k spam.
Warren
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 18:21, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 02/02/2010 12:07 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
>>
>> That is quite different from our masscheck stats. Today's results at
>> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100201/%2FJM_SOUGHT look like this:
>>
>> SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME
>>
On 02/02/2010 12:07 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
That is quite different from our masscheck stats. Today's results at
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100201/%2FJM_SOUGHT look like this:
SPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME
9.8564 0.0042 1.0000.940.01 T_JM_SOUGHT_3
8.1587
Adam Katz wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> Since the sought rules have been updating for a while now, I took a
>> look at my stats to see how they were doing. They used to be one
>> of my most useful rules, but recently, they don't seem to be doing
>> so good.
>>
>> Here are the stats for the
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Since the sought rules have been updating for a while now, I took a
> look at my stats to see how they were doing. They used to be one
> of my most useful rules, but recently, they don't seem to be doing
> so good.
>
> Here are the stats for the last month:
That looks like
Thanks for this info and good idea about this meta rule!
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On 2/1/10 9:59 AM, "Jason Bertoch" wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 10:58 AM, RW wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:04 +0100
>> Mark Martinec wrote:
>>
> Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
Actually back since Jan 6. :) Re-viewed about 1k fraud spam the
following days, for the Sought Fra
On 2/1/2010 10:58 AM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:04 +0100
Mark Martinec wrote:
Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
Actually back since Jan 6. :) Re-viewed about 1k fraud spam the
following days, for the Sought Fraud sub-set.
Btw, the three rules JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_{1,2,3} have a sc
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:04 +0100
Mark Martinec wrote:
> > > Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
> >
> > Actually back since Jan 6. :) Re-viewed about 1k fraud spam the
> > following days, for the Sought Fraud sub-set.
>
> Btw, the three rules JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_{1,2,3} have a score of zero
>
On 2/1/10 9:30 AM, "Mark Martinec" wrote:
>>> Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
>>
>> Actually back since Jan 6. :) Re-viewed about 1k fraud spam the
>> following days, for the Sought Fraud sub-set.
>
> Btw, the three rules JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_{1,2,3} have a score of zero
> as per Justin's r
On 2/1/2010 10:30 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Btw, the three rules JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_{1,2,3} have a score of zero
as per Justin's request (Bug 6155 c 38, c72, c89, c124).
Not sure if people using the channel realize that scores
need to be bumped up. Btw, I prefer to avoid them monopolizing
the score
> > Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
>
> Actually back since Jan 6. :) Re-viewed about 1k fraud spam the
> following days, for the Sought Fraud sub-set.
Btw, the three rules JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_{1,2,3} have a score of zero
as per Justin's request (Bug 6155 c 38, c72, c89, c124).
Not sure if p
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 00:10 -0500, Jared Hall wrote:
> Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
Actually back since Jan 6. :) Re-viewed about 1k fraud spam the
following days, for the Sought Fraud sub-set.
> Had to pinch myself 2.5 times (1 per month)
> to be sure.
>
> Thanks.
--
char *t="\10p
Justin Mason wrote:
> unfortunately my house renovation is taking longer than planned, and
> my net access outside work, at the moment, consists of an iPhone!
Construction always takes longer than people plan it to take. It is
rather like software in that regard!
> Working on anything this way i
Hi all -
I'm afraid the sought rules, and generally most of my time to work on
SA, is still on a bit of a hiatus due to circumstances out of my
control :(
unfortunately my house renovation is taking longer than planned, and
my net access outside work, at the moment, consists of an iPhone!
Workin
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, jp wrote:
Post your server and bandwidth requirements here. I'm sure many of us
would have the datacenter space and capacity to host a redundant backup.
It's wonderful to see so many people offer 'mirror' space, but as I
understand things, the issue is not with delivery/do
Post your server and bandwidth requirements here. I'm sure many of us
would have the datacenter space and capacity to host a redundant backup.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:29:07PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 14:04, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > john ffitch wrote:
> >> Have I mis
On 11-Nov-2009, at 11:37, George R. Kasica wrote:
> Truewhat do you need to host this thingif I can help out with
> space/bandwidth I'd be willing. I've got a couple linux boxes here
> that I could give you some space on.
I've got a pretty solid business-cable connection at home and my ser
Hi guys --
the problem is that SOUGHT uses gigabytes of private mail, so running
that on a shared host is not viable. Currently we don't have anything
like that I can use :(
On Wednesday, November 11, 2009, George R. Kasica wrote:
>>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:09:09 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>> Y
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:09:09 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Yep -- sorry -- I got to reboot the server, but it appears to have not
>> fixed the problem.
>> Right now I'm not likely to be able to perform more investigation for a week
>> or two. :(
>>
>> Sorry about this -- the perils of volunteer inf
Hi,
> Yep -- sorry -- I got to reboot the server, but it appears to have not
> fixed the problem.
> Right now I'm not likely to be able to perform more investigation for a week
> or two. :(
>
> Sorry about this -- the perils of volunteer infrastructure!
Where is it physically located? Isn't there
Justin Mason wrote:
> Yep -- sorry -- I got to reboot the server, but it appears to have not
> fixed the problem.
> Right now I'm not likely to be able to perform more investigation for a week
> or two. :(
>
> Sorry about this -- the perils of volunteer infrastructure!
No problem. I've set scores
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 14:04, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> john ffitch wrote:
>> Have I missed something? I used to pull the sought rules daily, but
>> nothing seems to have changed since 2 Nov. Is that expected behaviour?
>> ==John ffitch
>>
>
> No, that's not expected behavior...
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2
john ffitch wrote:
> Have I missed something? I used to pull the sought rules daily, but
> nothing seems to have changed since 2 Nov. Is that expected behaviour?
> ==John ffitch
>
No, that's not expected behavior...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
> Right now, SOUGHT appears to be br
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 00:00, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> I need the "full" mails to do that -- but with the uploaded mail, yes, I
>> should do that! good point.
>
> Glad to help.
>
>> Right now, SOUGHT appears to be broken. I need to get to where the server
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
I need the "full" mails to do that -- but with the uploaded mail, yes, I
should do that! good point.
Glad to help.
Right now, SOUGHT appears to be broken. I need to get to where the
server is currently and fix it -- I don't have remote login to it at
I need the "full" mails to do that -- but with the uploaded mail, yes,
I should do that!
good point.
Right now, SOUGHT appears to be broken. I need to get to where the server is
currently and fix it -- I don't have remote login to it at the mo :(
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 18:02, John Hardin wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> The SA core rules are not updated very often. For the most part, they
>> just work. If you are not already doing so, you may want to consider
>> Justin's Sought ruleset. It is dynamically generated and updated every
>> 4 hours o
On 11/4/2009 5:22 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Bowie Bailey wrote:
The SA core rules are not updated very often. For the most part, they
just work. If you are not already doing so, you may want to consider
Justin's Sought ruleset. It is dynamically generated and updated ever
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Bowie Bailey wrote:
The SA core rules are not updated very often. For the most part, they
just work. If you are not already doing so, you may want to consider
Justin's Sought ruleset. It is dynamically generated and updated every
4 hours or so.
http://wiki.apache.org/spama
MU> maybe using spamd and spamc is hat you want...
But that would be a http://wiki.dreamhost.com/Persistent_Processes
On 27.12.08 08:51, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> I took a look at Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit, but what I
> really want to do is "if it is ham, run it through the expensive
> 'sought' extra tests, to see if it really is ham."
>
> I.e., if the end result is below required_score, continu
I took a look at Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit, but what I
really want to do is "if it is ham, run it through the expensive
'sought' extra tests, to see if it really is ham."
I.e., if the end result is below required_score, continue on into the
"sought" tests.
Probably the only way to
jida...@jidanni.org a écrit :
> m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/sa-update.sh.txt
> m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/channel.conf
> They give 403 Forbidden.
should be fixed now. sorry for the annoyance.
m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/sa-update.sh.txt
m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/channel.conf
They give 403 Forbidden.
> >> ???AFAIK Justin is aware of this, and hopefully will have fixed it
> >> soon. :)
> On Wed, December 10, 2008 12:28, Justin Mason wrote:
> > this should be fixed now, I think...
On 15.12.08 03:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
[...]
> [746] dbg: http: GET request,
> http://yerp.org/rules/stage/320726
> [746] dbg: generic: lint check of site pre files succeeded,
> continuing with channel updates
> [746] dbg: channel: no MIRRORED.BY file available
> [746] dbg: http: GET request, http://yerp.org/rules/MIRRORED.BY
> [746] dbg: channel: MIRRORED.BY file retrieved
> [746] dbg: channel: reading MIRROR
On Wed, December 10, 2008 12:28, Justin Mason wrote:
>> ???AFAIK Justin is aware of this, and hopefully will have fixed it
>> soon. :)
>
> this should be fixed now, I think...
[746] dbg: generic: lint check of site pre files succeeded,
continuing with channel updates
[746] dbg: channel: no MIRRO
On 12-Dec-2008, at 07:20, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
If
something doesn't work, please do at least think twice about the
command
that failed, *before* venting your broken syntax to the list.
It wasn't *MY* broken syntax, that's the whole point.
--
The other cats just think he's a tosser. -
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 15:03 +0100, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> sa-update currently fails with:
>
> http: request failed: 403 Forbidden: [...]
> Any permission issues on yerp.org?
Just tested, works for me. Did you try again?
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Hi,
sa-update currently fails with:
http: request failed: 403 Forbidden: 2.0//EN"> 403 Forbidden
Forbidden You don't have permission to access
/rules/stage/320725913.tar.gz on this server. Apache/2.2.8
(Ubuntu) DAV/2 SVN/1.4.6 PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:12 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 11-Dec-2008, at 14:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I read a hell of a lot of stuff about all this, and have been running
> SA since 2.mumble If you are a plug-n-play sysadmin, then no
> problem. If you are already well-versed in the vag
My god, let it go, please!
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
In article , LuKreme
writes
>The gpg installed on my FreeBSD does not have a man page (installed by
>ports for SA3.2.5, IIRC), just a --help which says the syntax is:
Logically you have security/gnupg installed which means...
%ls -l /usr/local/bin/gpg*
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4 Oct 15
On 11-Dec-2008, at 14:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
...or read the documentation.
I read a hell of a lot of stuff about all this, and have been running
SA since 2.mumble If you are a plug-n-play sysadmin, then no
problem. If you are already well-versed in the vagaries of gpg, then
fin
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 22:29 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 13:32 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> > Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded
> > it. And it came from the same server as the rules are coming.
> > The KeyID is coming from who knows wh
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 13:32 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> > It's almost like "Just download this key file and you'll be fine. Don't
> > worry about where it came from, just put it in your keyring."
>
> Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded
> it. And it came from the s
LuKreme wrote:
> On 11-Dec-2008, at 07:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > It's almost like "Just download this key file and you'll be fine.
> > Don't worry about where it came from, just put it in your keyring."
>
> Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded
> it. And it c
On 11-Dec-2008, at 07:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 10-Dec-2008, at 20:36, SM wrote:
it's a hexadecimal number which identifies the key.
And the source of that number is, evidently, a complete mystery.
That's my point. I've seen lots of instructions like this:
# wget http://som
RobertH wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:49:28 -0800:
> what ones did you keep? if you recall, any particular reason why?
Hm, I checked and it seems I was wrong, partly. I still have them in the
channels.txt for my sa-update. I removed them on some other machines
partly because of memory constraint
Mouss wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:34:21 +0100:
> 90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
Thanks, for the tip, I wasn't aware of it. As I understand it helps URIBL
to score on subdomains that it otherwise wouldn't check at all?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Inter
At 22:19 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote:
I ssh to the server and then I sudo su (so I am sure I have discarded
my own login environment, I do not normally do this)
mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg
gpg: error reading key: No public key
gpg --no-default-keyring
y>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:48:34 +0100:
> Hmm, mine doesn't. :)
My package says gnupg-1.4.5-13.
> Instead that option's desc starts with "List all
> keys from the public keyrings, or just the keys given on the command
> line".
Y
LuKreme wrote:
> On 10-Dec-2008, at 20:36, SM wrote:
> >
> > it's a hexadecimal number which identifies the key.
>
> And the source of that number is, evidently, a complete mystery.
> That's my point. I've seen lots of instructions like this:
>
> # wget http://somesite.tld/somepath/GPG.KEY
> #
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
