On Jan 27, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Björn Keil wrote:
> I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1, installed via the Ubuntu 10.04
An ancient version of SA on a 6 year-old OS?
--
A sadder and a wiser man he rose the morrow morn.
Am 27.01.2016 um 17:18 schrieb Björn Keil:
I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1, installed via the Ubuntu 10.04 package
system, and am trying to figure out how it determines which rules to
use. It appears my SpamAssassin uses completely outdated rules, including
DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, which queries a l
Hello,
I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1, installed via the Ubuntu 10.04 package
system, and am trying to figure out how it determines which rules to
use. It appears my SpamAssassin uses completely outdated rules, including
DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, which queries a list which does not exist anymore and wi
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Matt Kettler wrote:
On 6/9/2010 12:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
Even better:
Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
or
Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all)
On 6/9/2010 12:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
>>
> Even better:
>
> Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
>
> or
>
> Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all)
>
>
Well, unsupp
On 9-Jun-2010, at 10:25, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>> It would be great if you could document exactly what features are
>>> exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how
>>> much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5?
>>
>> All new rules. All current spam-fighting measu
Hi,
>> It would be great if you could document exactly what features are
>> exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how
>> much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5?
>
> All new rules. All current spam-fighting measures.
Yes, I realize that. I was hoping for specif
On 8-Jun-2010, at 21:22, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to
>> keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest
>> version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without
>> it!), but don't have that clear
On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
Even better:
Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
or
Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all)
--
I collect blondes and bottles. ~Marlowe
On 6/8/2010 11:22 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to
>> keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest
>> version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without
>> it!), but don't have that clearly
Hi,
> We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to
> keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest
> version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without
> it!), but don't have that clearly documented either.
It would be great if you
On 6/8/2010 5:48 PM, James Ralston wrote:
> On 2010-05-21 at 03:09+02 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
>
>> 3.2.x is in maintenance, and gets emergency rule updates
>> *exclusively*. As it has been for quite a long time.
>>
>> 3.3.x uses a new rule update model, and gets frequent updates. IFF
>> t
On 2010-05-21 at 03:09+02 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> 3.2.x is in maintenance, and gets emergency rule updates
> *exclusively*. As it has been for quite a long time.
>
> 3.3.x uses a new rule update model, and gets frequent updates. IFF
> the mass-check corpus is large enough.
And exactly whe
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 21:34 -0400, Robert Palmer wrote:
> yum install insisted I have current version so I used cpan which got me
> to 3.3.1. Should I stop there or consider 3.3.2 or 3.4.x?
http://spamassassin.apache.org/
Did you have a look there, yet? 3.3.1 is the latest stable release.
3.3.2
On fre 21 maj 2010 03:09:05 CEST, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote
Ignoring your (humble or not) opinion for a second... 3.3.x is the
latest stable.
thanks for clearing up this mess :)
3.3.1 is not being stable here on gentoo, there is a few problems with
spf check, and i will try to find where its
yum install insisted I have current version so I used cpan which got me
to 3.3.1. Should I stop there or consider 3.3.2 or 3.4.x?
Thanks
On 5/20/2010 9:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 01:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and no
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 01:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > > I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have
> > > not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting
> > > a lot of nasty spam coming through.
> imho 3.2.5 is still latest stable
Ignoring your
On Thu, May 20, 2010 4:26 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On fre 21 maj 2010 00:05:26 CEST, Michael Scheidell wrote
>> On 5/20/10 6:00 PM, Robert Palmer wrote:
>>> I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have
>>> not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting
>>>
On fre 21 maj 2010 00:05:26 CEST, Michael Scheidell wrote
On 5/20/10 6:00 PM, Robert Palmer wrote:
I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have
not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting
a lot of nasty spam coming through.
just upgrade to SA 3.3.1
On 5/20/10 6:00 PM, Robert Palmer wrote:
I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not
updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot
of nasty spam coming through.
just upgrade to SA 3.3.1
only current versions of SA have current rule updates.
-
I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not
updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot of
nasty spam coming through.
Is it the case that the default rules are no longer being updated and
are there any other recommended sources for anti-spam ru
I'm investigating why now. The root cause I know... that mirror blew a
power supply last night, so I moved it to a new server in a hurry at
midnight. Apparently I messed up the config somewhere.
Anywho... it's now working. Not the way I would like it to, but how it
wants to.
Daryl
On 02/01/2
I noticed that my channels were not updating from the master list over at
DOStech... so I decided to rename my rules folder to .old and re-run
sa-update
I get the spamassassin master cf files, but on every other entry I get
something similar to this:
http: request failed: 404 Not Found: 40
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 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
> #
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, LuKreme wrote:
I'm still unclear on how the --gpgkey makes it more secure. If the file
is signed, the signature is checked against the public key that I have
in pubring.gpg. What does the gpgkey do?
It indicates which key to use to check the signature.
--
John Hardin
> > mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg
> > gpg: error reading key: No public key
And another doc you didn't read before asking here, LuKreme...
> I get the same, and without the path to a file I get the keys from the
> global keyring which are non for SA. man
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
LuKreme wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:19:25 -0700:
> mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg
> gpg: error reading key: No public key
I get the same, and without the path to a file I get the keys from the
g
LuKreme wrote:
> I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
> number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still not
> found that information. I've seen the IDs in others posts, sure, but
> where do they originate?
>
> Even searching the wiki (which
On 10-Dec-2008, at 22:18, SM wrote:
At 20:39 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote:
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
# sudo sa-update --import GPG.KEY
# sudo sa-update --g
At 20:39 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote:
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
# sudo sa-update --import GPG.KEY
# sudo sa-update --gpgkey 0E28B3DC --channel uber.rule.so
On 10-Dec-2008, at 20:36, SM wrote:
At 13:51 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote:
I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still
not found that information. I've seen the IDs in others posts, sure,
but where do the
At 13:51 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote:
I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still
not found that information. I've seen the IDs in others posts, sure,
but where do they originate?
sa-update uses GPG (GN
>
> Right. I removed most if not all of the SARE rules on most
> machines some months ago with no ill effects.
>
> Kai
what ones did you keep? if you recall, any particular reason why?
- rh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
LuKreme wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:51:47 -0700:
> I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
> number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still
> not found that information. I've seen t
LuKreme a écrit :
> On 10-Dec-2008, at 01:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC):
>>> Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page
>>
>> and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-)
>
> I read the man page, where there is no mention
On 10-Dec-2008, at 01:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC):
Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page
and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-)
I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
number
John Horne a écrit :
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 22:54 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 9-Dec-2008, at 17:09, John Horne wrote:
>>> Try:
>>>
>>>sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel sought.rules.yerp.org
>> Ok, that gives me no error (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). It
>> sits for about 20-30 s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote:
> > > Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems
> > > like it's been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via
> > > sa-update.
> >
> > I believ
Justin Mason wrote:
Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes:
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote:
Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's
been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update.
I believe this is due to the recent SSL ce
Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes:
> On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote:
> > Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's
> > been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update.
>
> I believe this is due to the recent SSL cert updat
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 22:54 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 9-Dec-2008, at 17:09, John Horne wrote:
> > Try:
> >
> >sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel sought.rules.yerp.org
>
> Ok, that gives me no error (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). It
> sits for about 20-30 seconds and then I get a
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> LuKreme wrote on Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:50:34 -0700:
>
>> Geez there's
>> a lot of them... and they look like they are very old, with last
>> updated dates in 2005-2006 and none newer than Aug 2007.
>
> Right. I removed most if not all of the SARE rules on most machines s
LuKreme wrote on Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:50:34 -0700:
> Geez there's
> a lot of them... and they look like they are very old, with last
> updated dates in 2005-2006 and none newer than Aug 2007.
Right. I removed most if not all of the SARE rules on most machines some
months ago with no ill effect
Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC):
> Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page
and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, LuKreme wrote:
(where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?).
Not too hard:
Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page (which is linked off of
http://spamassassin.apache.org/):
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/
The very first link provided this:
http://wiki.apac
On 9-Dec-2008, at 17:09, John Horne wrote:
Try:
sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel sought.rules.yerp.org
Ok, that gives me no error (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). It
sits for about 20-30 seconds and then I get a prompt back. But as far
as I can tell, nothing has changed. T
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 16:50 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 9-Dec-2008, at 12:58, Bill Landry wrote:
> > Both the official SA rules and 3rd party rules can be updated via
> > sa-update. For information and instructions, see:
> >
> > http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
>
> A
On 9-Dec-2008, at 12:58, Bill Landry wrote:
Both the official SA rules and 3rd party rules can be updated via
sa-update. For information and instructions, see:
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
Ah yes, I remember a lot of those from the days run rjd. Geez there'
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Chris wrote:
Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's
been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update.
Ditto here.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] $ ll /var/lib/spamassassin/3.001008/sought_rules_yerp_org
total 320
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root
On 9-Dec-2008, at 12:48, LuKreme wrote:
I'm thtinking the old rules like 70_sc_top200.cf etc should all be
removed?
Just to be clear, all I have currently active is:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel3278 Dec 9 12:30 dkim.cf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel1749 Dec 7 17:08 init.pre
drwx-- 2 ro
LuKreme wrote:
> On 9-Dec-2008, at 08:15, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 08:51 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>>> I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is
>>> current?
>>
>> Nigel, Chris wasn't talking about the stock rule-set, but the
>> third-party JM_
On 9-Dec-2008, at 08:15, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 08:51 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is
current?
Nigel, Chris wasn't talking about the stock rule-set, but the
third-party JM_SOUGHT rules. The latter usually
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 08:51 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is
> current?
Nigel, Chris wasn't talking about the stock rule-set, but the
third-party JM_SOUGHT rules. The latter usually are updated multiple
times a day, while the stock r
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote:
> Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's
> been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update.
I believe this is due to the recent SSL cert update for ASF svn. Changed
without a heads up in advance... :(
the current Sought version : # UPDATE version 320722979
and spamassassin : # UPDATE version 709395
I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is
current?
I have dbg: dns: 5.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org => 709395, parsed as
709395 showing here.
This even after a dns cras
I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is
current?
I have dbg: dns: 5.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org => 709395, parsed as
709395 showing here.
This even after a dns crash and replace.
Nigel
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:39:11 +0100, Leveau Stanislas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi
I have the same "problem"
regards
Stan
Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's
been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update.
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's
been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update.
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
pgpqvBQu4d9qG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
Firstly: I'm new to this list and also pretty new to SA in general. I
did try to find the answers to my questions in the FAQ, but haven't
succeeded beyond all doubt at doing so. I do hope, however, that I'm
not flogging a dead horse with my below questions (which appear
Hi guys,
Thanks for the answers!
I feel really stupid now for not having realised this; I was under the
impression that amavisd-new wouldn't need a restart, but sure enough
check the following lines from the amavis.log file after restarting
the daemon manually:
Feb 28 21:15:32 /usr/local
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > Olaf Greve wrote:
> > > The way I perform my updates are as follows:
> > >
> > > Cron call:
> > > 23 3 * * 2,5 /usr/local/bin/sa-update --allowplugins
> > > --gpgkeyfile /root/sa_pgp_keys --channelfile
> > > /root/sa_channels && /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd.sh restart >
> Olaf Greve wrote:
>> The way I perform my updates are as follows:
>>
>> Cron call:
>> 23 3 * * 2,5 /usr/local/bin/sa-update --allowplugins
>> --gpgkeyfile /root/sa_pgp_keys --channelfile
>> /root/sa_channels && /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd.sh
>> restart > /dev/null
>>
>> (yes, I realise spamd
Olaf Greve wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Firstly: I'm new to this list and also pretty new to SA in general. I
> did try to find the answers to my questions in the FAQ, but haven't
> succeeded beyond all doubt at doing so. I do hope, however, that I'm
> not flogging a dead horse with my below questions (which
Hi,
Firstly: I'm new to this list and also pretty new to SA in general. I did try
to find the answers to my questions in the FAQ, but haven't succeeded beyond
all doubt at doing so. I do hope, however, that I'm not flogging a dead horse
with my below questions (which appear at the end of the me
>-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
SARE has finally completed a first pass evaluation of several sets of
submitted rules concerning Rolex spam. You'll find a beta test of
these rules at
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_specific_rolex.cf
You'll find a hit-frequencies report for these rules at the top of
that file.
The 70_
Just a quick note that SARE has published new URI rules files.
New files 70_sare_uri0.cf, 70_sare_uri1.cf, 70_sare_uri3.cf, and
70_sare_uri_eng.cf replace the previous file 70_sare_uri.cf
The old file has been left in our http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/
directory, unchanged. We expect to dele
88 matches
Mail list logo
