On ons 14 okt 2009 00:11:02 CEST, Kevin Gagel wrote
Uh... OK. Meaning
missing rule are created, and the dependice problem is solved :)
just do this for ever rule that miss destination rules, if you want to
keep sare ninjas going
--
xpoint
Uh... OK. Meaning
Kevin W. Gagel
Network Administrator
Local 5448
My blog:
http://mail.cnc.bc.ca/blogs/gagel
My shared files:
http://mail.cnc.bc.ca/users/gagel
On Tuesday 10/13/2009 at 3:01 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 13 okt 2009 23:24:20 CEST, Kevin Gagel wrote
[5543] dbg: rule
On tir 13 okt 2009 23:24:20 CEST, Kevin Gagel wrote
[5543] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined
dependency 'SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2'
meta SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2 (0)
--
xpoint
I'm recieving errors when I run --lint -D. I know they're warnings and
don't mean anything tragic but I'd like to correct my installation to
make them go away...
[5543] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined
dependency 'SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2'
[5543] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_
Marcin Krol a écrit :
> Hello everyone,
>
> 1. First of all, as SARE rules don't seem to be updated anymore, does it
> still make sense to add them?
>
> 2. Assuming that it does, which SARE rules do you use? Or should I just
> add them all?
>
no, don't ad
Marcin Krol wrote:
>
> 2. Assuming that it does, which SARE rules do you use? Or should I
> just add them all?
Don't just blindly add them all. Not all of them are appropriate for
everyone and some of them have different versions for different SA
versions. Read the descriptions
As of right now they are not being updated. But still being used, even by
myself.
--Chris
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcin Krol [mailto:mrk...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 2008-12-19 06:35
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Adding SARE rules
>
>
> Hello
Hello everyone,
1. First of all, as SARE rules don't seem to be updated anymore, does it
still make sense to add them?
2. Assuming that it does, which SARE rules do you use? Or should I just
add them all?
Regards,
Marcin
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
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 is dated June 17.
I debugged saupdate and this appears correct. But rece
le file(s) are triggering the
>> error. Below I list the contents of my /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/
>>
>> I have no evidence, but I suspect the SARE rules...
>>
>> Any ideas as to what the problem is and how I can fix it?
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance...
:[ OK ]
Starting spamd:[ OK ]
The error message doesn't make clear which rule file(s) are triggering the
error. Below I list the contents of my /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/
I have no evidence, but I suspect the SARE rules...
Any ideas
line 2140.
rules: score undef for rule 'NO_RECEIVED' in '' 'NO_RECEIVED' at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2140.
rules: score undef for rule 'MISSING_SUBJECT' in '' 'MISSING_SUBJECT' at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_
[12734] dbg: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
'DCC_CHECK'
[12734] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
'SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2'
[12734] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
'X_AUTH_WARN_FAKED'
[12734] dbg: rules: meta
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:06:32AM +1300, Kathryn Allan wrote:
> I would have though that the rule file would have ended up inside the
> updates_spamassassin_org folder as all the other .cf files seem to be
> inside there.
updates_spamassassin_org is for update files from updates.spamassassin.or
Hi all,
I have recently inherited the responsibility of looking after our spam
machine as such i'm having a few teething issues : )
I just followed the instructions in the sare-sa-update-howto.txt I am
just a bit confused as to whether I have done it correctly originally in
the /var/lib/spam
> >
> > 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 rul
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
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Billy Huddleston wrote:
> Malformed UTF-8 character (unexpected non-cont
> inuation byte 0x00, immediately after start byte 0xd5) in pattern match
> (m//) at
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/70_sare_obfu1.cf, rule __SARE_OBFU_VISIT1, line
> 1, 2> line 64.
>
Malformed UTF-8 character (unexpected non-cont
inuation byte 0x00, immediately after start byte 0xd5) in pattern match
(m//) at
/etc/mail/spamassassin/70_sare_obfu1.cf, rule __SARE_OBFU_VISIT1, line
1,
2> line 64.
Malformed UTF-8 character (unexpected non-cont
inuation byte 0x00, immediately a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Billy Huddleston wrote:
> I upgraded from 3.1.7 to 3.2.1 and started getting errors from
> 70_sare_obfu.cf rules set.. any one got any ideas on this?
>
> Thanks, Billy
>
> **
What are the errors?
- --
-Doc
Penguins: Do it on the ice.
8:44am
I upgraded from 3.1.7 to 3.2.1 and started getting errors from
70_sare_obfu.cf rules set.. any one got any ideas on this?
Thanks, Billy
**
I'm hoping I can get to this a in a day or two Justin. I started on it a
few days ago and had the editor I was using decide that it didn't like
high-byte characters and crash, and I haven't had time to get back and do it
again. SOmething about a 16-hour a day day job and two side jobs that tak
SARE guys -- any chance those rules could be simply zeroed out (ie.
replaced with "meta NAMEOFRULE (0)" or similar) in the short term, until
they're fixed properly?
I'm seeing increasing amounts of problems caused by this bug around the
web -- specifically, log partitions filling up due to the er
bug, not a new feature in 3.2.0.
Yeah - I saw the bug posting after googling for the right stuff.
I had to disable sare obfu, bml and adult to get things to work. I
had my maillogs fill up /var (4GB) in under an hour so I'm hoping the
sare rules get updated soon.
Thanks,
Josh
Loren Wilton writes:
> Its a new feature with 3.2. We have to rewrite most of the obfu rules to
> get around this, and none of us have had the time yet.
more correctly, it's a perl bug, not a new feature in 3.2.0.
--j.
Its a new feature with 3.2. We have to rewrite most of the obfu rules to
get around this, and none of us have had the time yet.
Loren
Hi, I installed re2c when I built SA 3.2.0 and uncommented this:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Rule2XSBody
Then ran:
sa-update
sa-compile
/etc/init.d/spamassassin restart
I now notice the following over and over many many times (enough to
fill up /var) in mail.log:
May 5 21:47:48 ww
Mendizábal
Matthias Haegele escribió:
Max de Mendizabal schrieb:
Dear all,
I have a very rare problem: if I do not use the SARE rules everythings
works ok but... If I run
sa-update
Then spamassassin stops working.
You tried:?
sa-update -D
If I check it with
spamassassin -D < spam-mail.
. Héroes de Padierna
5630-9700 x 1157 y 1414
Matthias Haegele escribió:
> Max de Mendizabal schrieb:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have a very rare problem: if I do not use the SARE rules everythings
>> works ok but... If I run
>>
>> sa-update
>>
>> Then s
Max de Mendizabal schrieb:
Dear all,
I have a very rare problem: if I do not use the SARE rules everythings
works ok but... If I run
sa-update
Then spamassassin stops working.
If I check it with
spamassassin -D < spam-mail.txt
Works ok, but if I use
spamc < spam-mail.txt
Sho
On 1/1/07, Shaun T. Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, this is interesting. :)
The follow-up to this is that I just got spam that was hit by the SARE
rules, so it's working now. Additionally, Razor2 & DCC are now
working, as well. So the only mystery is why everything ins
it has re-downloaded all of my sare rules and so forth to
/usr/local/perl-5.8.8/var/spamassassin/3.001007/
When I run amavisd debug-sa, it now finds all the rules that were just
downloaded to the above location. I presume I can get rid of the now
useless and never used copies that are under /var
it has re-downloaded all of my sare rules and so forth to
/usr/local/perl-5.8.8/var/spamassassin/3.001007/
When I run amavisd debug-sa, it now finds all the rules that were just
downloaded to the above location. I presume I can get rid of the now
useless and never used copies that are under /var/lib
in the directories I see the normal SA
rules and the SARE rules.
If so, you should see something similar to:
<...>
dbg: config: read file /etc/spamassassin/init.pre
That's where it goes astray (?) and uses everything from
/usr/local/perl-5.8.8/etc/mail/spamassassin
--
-ste
Ok. I'm starting to understand this now. I've built perl 5.8.8 and
pointed my existing amavisd-new at it, by editing its first line. I
then added, via CPAN, any module it complained was missing, each time
I tried to run it, until it no longer complained of anything missing
(that was required, anyw
matter). It's possible you have more than one directory where rules are
placed (spamassassin is installed in more than one place). If so, you need
to place the SARE rules where amavisd-new says it is looking for them, or
better yet, clean it up by removing the stuff that belongs to
local.cf.
- Original Message -
From: "Shaun T. Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin"
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 12:13 PM
Subject: No hits on SARE rules.
I have two identically (or so I thought) configured mail servers, each
pulling down SARE ru
On 1/1/07, Gary V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You must be running SA 3.1.4 or older and amavisd-new 2.4.2 or older.
Nope. SA 3.1.7 & amavisd-new 2.4.4.
I see in amavisd, the line you suggested I add is actually there, but
commented out, as a comment there indicates that SA should be able to
ha
On 1/1/07, Shaun T. Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What am I doing wrong?
I just ran amavisd with the debug-sa option, and as near as I can
tell, it appears to only be using the original ruleset - and doesn't
even seem to know that I am pulling new rules down with sa-update.
I must have
Do you have any log entries in /var/logs/maillog
- Original Message -
From: "Shaun T. Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin"
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: No hits on SARE rules.
On 1/1/07, Shaun T. Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECT
On 1/1/07, Shaun T. Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What am I doing wrong?
I just ran amavisd with the debug-sa option, and as near as I can
tell, it appears to only be using the original ruleset - and doesn't
even seem to know that I am pulling new rules down with sa-update.
I must have
I have two identically (or so I thought) configured mail servers, each
pulling down SARE rules (successfully, I might add). One of them shows
hits on SARE rules all the time - the other one, never. Aside from
simply configuring sa-update to pull the rules down, I'm wondering if
there is some
'spamassassin --lint' gives me some soft errors on some SARE rules (see
below) Are these known, 'ignore for now' sorts of things due to SA 2.x
and SA 3.x installs, or should I be doing something about this?
Is there any way to adjust --lint to not show these ?
Thank
Giampaolo,
> > These commands will only exit after they have completed their job,
> > i.e. waiting for the existing daemon to have stopped.
> ...So, I don't have a Linux distribution running on my servers?
> May you suggest to me the kind of OS brand I'm running?
Not sure what you are asking her
> > The guy who made the script did simply test shutting and restarting the
> > amavis/spamd daemon up and down in its own test environment,
> which basicly
> > is low mail load or even no mail at all.
> >
> > After a while amavis is doing it's dirty job, I noticed it
> needs a lot of
> > time to
> The guy who made the script did simply test shutting and restarting the
> amavis/spamd daemon up and down in its own test environment, which basicly
> is low mail load or even no mail at all.
>
> After a while amavis is doing it's dirty job, I noticed it needs a lot of
> time to shut down. It tak
From: Peter H. Lemieux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> > # Check for amavis termination
> > while [[ ! -z "${PIDS}" ]]; do
> > sleep 1
> > PIDS=$( /sbin/pidof "${AMV_NM}" )
> > done
>
> In cases like this I usually ju
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
# Check for amavis termination
while [[ ! -z "${PIDS}" ]]; do
sleep 1
PIDS=$( /sbin/pidof "${AMV_NM}" )
done
In cases like this I usually just put the "sleep" command in the init
script like this:
...
case "$
> The other night my default gentoo RulesDuJour for Spamassassin
> acquired new
> Adult and General rule-sets from SARE. Thereafter spamd refused all
> connections and subsequently received mail was not spam filtered.
> Issuing '/etc/init.d/spamd restart' as root resolved the situation...
> but
The other night my default gentoo RulesDuJour for Spamassassin acquired new
Adult and General rule-sets from SARE. Thereafter spamd refused all
connections and subsequently received mail was not spam filtered.
Issuing '/etc/init.d/spamd restart' as root resolved the situation...
but I don't want
Loren Wilton wrote:
All of the active rules (those in the various directories that don't
depend on a disabled plugin) are included in the check. It wouldn't
make sense to only include some of them.
Well while I agree with that last statement it seems to conflict with
something Theo said a fe
All of the active rules (those in the various directories that don't
depend on a disabled plugin) are included in the check. It wouldn't make
sense to only include some of them.
Well while I agree with that last statement it seems to conflict with
something Theo said a few days ago on the dev
Loren Wilton wrote:
I'd bet we have some dependency errors. I'm not convinced that all of
those warnings are actual dependency errors, some might be effects of
not all of the rules files being included in the check.
All of the active rules (those in the various directories that don't
depend
;t have plugins enabled when it is run so things
depended on plugin rules throw errors.
2) Possibly not all of the standard rules are included when they run the
check, so anything dependent on a standard rule will throw an error.
3) There are actual dependency errors in the SARE rules.
I
James Lay wrote:
Morning all!
Just upgraded from 3.1.3 to 3.1.4 and here's what I get:
Jul 27 08:16:27 myshield spamd[15259]: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency 'DCC_CHECK'
Jul 27 08:16:27 myshield spamd[15259]: rules: meta test SARE_SUB_GAPPY_4 has undefined dependency
Morning all!
Just upgraded from 3.1.3 to 3.1.4 and here's what I get:
Jul 27 08:16:27 myshield spamd[15259]: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has
undefined dependency 'DCC_CHECK'
Jul 27 08:16:27 myshield spamd[15259]: rules: meta test SARE_SUB_GAPPY_4 has
undefined dependency '__SARE_SUB_GAPP
-Original Message-
From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:22 AM
To: James E. Pratt
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re[2]: problem with using SARE rules, names longer than 22
chars
Hello James,
Wednesday, May 17, 2006, 6:09:51 AM
Hello James,
Wednesday, May 17, 2006, 6:09:51 AM, you wrote:
JEP> I had the same probllem with sa 3.04
JEP> Anyhow, i solved it by changing the trusted ruleset entry
JEP> "SARE_HEADER_0" to "SARE_HEADER_X31" as advised on rulesemporium.com,
JEP> and all works fine now.
Either you misread th
From: "James E. Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Jo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Kettler wrote:
Jo wrote:
Hi,
We're using spamassassin-3.0.5-3.el4 with amavisd-new-2.4.1-1.el4.rf.
Since yesterday I'm receiving this message when downloading the SARE
rules:
*
From: "Jo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matt Kettler wrote:
Jo wrote:
Hi,
We're using spamassassin-3.0.5-3.el4 with amavisd-new-2.4.1-1.el4.rf.
Since yesterday I'm receiving this message when downloading the SARE
rules:
***WARNING***: spamassassin --lint failed.
Rollin
James E. Pratt schreef:
-Original Message-
From: Jo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:05 AM
To: Matt Kettler
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: problem with using SARE rules, names longer than 22 chars
Matt Kettler wrote:
Jo wrote
Jo wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Jo wrote:
>>>
>>> Are these simply problems with the names?
>> Yes, but it's not really a problem.
>>
> Thanks for your answer. I only saw after I sent the mail that they were
> only warnings and not errors. I'm a bit less worried now. I thought I
> had a
-Original Message-
From: Jo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:05 AM
To: Matt Kettler
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: problem with using SARE rules, names longer than 22 chars
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Jo wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>&
Matt Kettler wrote:
Jo wrote:
Hi,
We're using spamassassin-3.0.5-3.el4 with amavisd-new-2.4.1-1.el4.rf.
Since yesterday I'm receiving this message when downloading the SARE
rules:
***WARNING***: spamassassin --lint failed.
Rolling configuration files back, not restarting Sp
Jo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're using spamassassin-3.0.5-3.el4 with amavisd-new-2.4.1-1.el4.rf.
> Since yesterday I'm receiving this message when downloading the SARE
> rules:
>
> ***WARNING***: spamassassin --lint failed.
> Rolling configuration files back, not r
Hi,
We're using spamassassin-3.0.5-3.el4 with amavisd-new-2.4.1-1.el4.rf.
Since yesterday I'm receiving this message when downloading the SARE rules:
***WARNING***: spamassassin --lint failed.
Rolling configuration files back, not restarting SpamAssassin.
Rollback command is: m
Title: RE: standard vs SARE rules
>
> From that I would infer that the SARE stock ruleset is the
> most effective -
> it was responsible for 5 out of 163 spams being identified.
> That leaves the
> other files I use - 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf, 70_sare_html0.cf,
Title: RE: standard vs SARE rules
>
> WooHoo! 70_sare_stocks.cf hits my favorite number! Sorry just
> had to say
> that! 8*))
>
> And of course that means it is working good too!
>
> For those who don't know I'm the maintainer of that SARE ruleset.
Ye
pushed it over the required hits threshold. Sound good? So, out of 163
spam
messages, here's the files that pushed spams over the edge (files with no
rules that pushed over the threshold are omitted):
Correction: that should've been 3481 spam messages.
Mike, I suspect you are using the wrong criterion in removing some of the
rules. Unfortunately none of the log readers seem to store the most
interesting bit of information. How many times did the SARE rules make a
critical difference between marking a spam message as spam? I find they
are a
Mike, I suspect you are using the wrong criterion in removing some of the
rules. Unfortunately none of the log readers seem to store the most
interesting bit of information. How many times did the SARE rules make a
critical difference between marking a spam message as spam? I find they
are a
On Freitag, 21. April 2006 06:17 Dave Augustus wrote:
> That sounds like a script I am interested in- Can you send me a copy?
/me 2
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc- http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660/4156531 .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "lynx
Mike,
That sounds like a script I am interested in- Can you send me a copy?
TIA,
Dave Augustus
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 17:24 -0700, Mike Jackson wrote:
> > That seems fine - I'd expect that for a package like SpamAssassin, the
> > default rules (plus Razor and Pyzor) would be very good at identi
Mike Jackson wrote:
SARE RULESETS:
70_sare_adult.cf: 10
70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf: 0
70_sare_html0.cf: 1
70_sare_obfu0.cf: 1
70_sare_oem.cf: 30
70_sare_specific.cf: 5
70_sare_spoof.cf: 14
70_sare_stocks.cf: 69
70_sc_top200.cf: 1
WooHoo! 70_sare_stocks.cf hits my favorite number! Sorry just
rulesets. Does anyone else have a
sense of how much spam the rulesets they use actually help identify?
Mike, I suspect you are using the wrong criterion in removing some of the
rules. Unfortunately none of the log readers seem to store the most
interesting bit of information. How many tim
That seems fine - I'd expect that for a package like SpamAssassin, the
default rules (plus Razor and Pyzor) would be very good at identifying
spam. However, this was the part that surprised me:
Sorry to reply to my own post, and before anyone had a chance to. I tried
this on my personal server
Matt Kettler's advice in the "Good ruleset" thread made me wonder just how
many spams the various rule files I'm using actually catch. So, I wrote a
quick Perl script to look at the rule files and check a stat script's output
(against today's logs) for the rules that spam messages matched, then
> What SARE rules would folks recommend for a default 3.1.0
> SpamAssassin installation (non RDJ)?
I'd recommend at least all of the "0" rule sets,a nd probably the matching
"1" rule sets also. Also sare_specific. Some of the old standbys like
tripwire (availab
set let us know we like feedback!
> -Doc (SARE Ninja)
Thanks much Doc and all! It seems to work very well.
What SARE rules would folks recommend for a default 3.1.0
SpamAssassin installation (non RDJ)?
Currently we're using:
http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stocks.cf
http:
om: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:14 PM
>> > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> > Subject: Pump and Dump SARE rules
>> >
>> >
>> > http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stocks.cf
>> >
On Sunday 05 February 2006 17:41, Doc Schneider wrote:
> Chris Santerre wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:14 PM
> > > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
&
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:14 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Pump and Dump SARE rules
>
>
> http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stock
Title: RE: Pump and Dump SARE rules
> -Original Message-
> From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:14 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Pump and Dump SARE rules
>
>
> http://rulesemporium.com/rules/7
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Doc Schneider wrote:
http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stocks.cf
Is the latest addition to the SARE rule sets.
I don't see this on the SARE rules website.
Do you have the masscheck results available anywhere?
I will add in the mass-check results in a bit.
Doc Schneider wrote:
> http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stocks.cf
>
> Is the latest addition to the SARE rule sets.
I don't see this on the SARE rules website.
Do you have the masscheck results available anywhere?
--
Bowie
Doc Schneider wrote:
http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stocks.cf
Is the latest addition to the SARE rule sets.
-Doc (SARE Ninja)
Added to RDJ version 1.28 as "SARE_STOCKS"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
http://rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_stocks.cf
Is the latest addition to the SARE rule sets.
-Doc (SARE Ninja)
gt; From: JP Kelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 December 2005 05:31
> To: SpamAssassin
> Cc: Robert Menschel
> Subject: SA not using SARE rules?
>
> It seems SA is not using the SARE rulesets for me?
> I see no mention of SARE in any of my tagged spam.
> I hav
It seems SA is not using the SARE rulesets for me?
I see no mention of SARE in any of my tagged spam.
I have been using rules_du_jour and downloading current rulesets.
Any ideas why SA would not be using SARE rulesets?
Hello jdow,
Thursday, October 6, 2005, 12:35:15 AM, you wrote:
j> From: "Robert Menschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> SARE's URI rules files and HTML rules files have been updated. ...
>>
>> Both sets include the migration of rules incorporated into 3.1.0 into
>> new 70_sare_*_x31.cf files. If you
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).
/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
> and
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
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.
> >>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 abo
/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
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 NEW file.
> and
> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
>
> 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
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
