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no longer active, and should not be used.”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.
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https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SoughtRules which states "this is no
longer active, and should not be used.”
--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, o
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
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-
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
>
>
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-
3301199767,
skipping channel
dbg: diag: updates complete, exiting with code 1
$ _
Looks, other than the fact that update is from November 9th, okay to me.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Sought-rules-revisited-tp32872639p32872639.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users
3301199767,
skipping channel
dbg: diag: updates complete, exiting with code 1
$ _
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Sought-rules-revisited-tp32872637p32872637.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
3301199767,
skipping channel
dbg: diag: updates complete, exiting with code 1
# _
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Sought-rules-revisited-tp32872636p32872636.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
3301199767,
skipping channel
dbg: diag: updates complete, exiting with code 1
# _
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Sought-rules-revisited-tp32872635p32872635.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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
ses the .cf
> files, or you could change the filename to 0_updates_spamassassin_org.cf.
>
> This would not only fix the current issue with the sought rules, it
> would also avoid future problems like this.
Thought about a "stock always comes first" code change myself, bu
ets loaded.
So
does that mean the stock rules are still overriding the sought rules? Or
am
I misinterpreting the output here?
Have a close look at the output again. In particular search for all
lines containing "sought".
You'll see the actual sought channel's contents bei
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
fault_rules directory (lines
> 7-11), which is good.
>
> What's confusing me is that lines 21 onwards show the individual .cf files
> getting loaded from inside each of the channel subdirectories in
> default_rules. And this is *after* my sought-rules.cf file gets loaded. So
>
s inside the default_rules directory (lines
7-11), which is good.
What's confusing me is that lines 21 onwards show the individual .cf files
getting loaded from inside each of the channel subdirectories in
default_rules. And this is *after* my sought-rules.cf file gets loaded. So
does tha
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
/
-rw-r--r-- sought_rules_yerp_org.cf
drwxr-xr-x updates_spamassassin_org/
-rw-r--r-- updates_spamassassin_org.cf
lrwxrwxrwx z-INCLUDE-LATE.cf -> sought_rules_yerp_org.cf
To verify the SOUGHT rules are indeed included a second time, after the
stock rule-set, have a look at the debug output.
$ s
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
hat
you get from the dedicated sa-update channel. With 3.3.x the plan is, to
frequently perform mass-checks and re-scoring, distributed via the
regular channel. This includes a recent snapshot of the Sought rules, so
the dedicated channel is almost obsolete. Alas, the re-scoring currently
does not h
x27;t to fix the scores, it's to ensure that you're using the latest
generated SOUGHT rules.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F
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
pstream to fix this problem?
Alternatively, I think it is a mistake for us to ship SOUGHT rules at
all in the standard sa-update channel. That is, unless we plan on
updating the patterns and scores of SOUGHT on a daily basis. I highly
doubt we will do that.
Agreed, I'm +1 with removin
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
think it is a mistake for us to ship SOUGHT rules at
all in the standard sa-update channel. That is, unless we plan on
updating the patterns and scores of SOUGHT on a daily basis. I highly
doubt we will do that.
Warren Togami
war...@togami.com
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
od idea in either case.
Other than that...
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 -- unless stock r
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
l cf files only hold include statements, to pull in the
> > actual cf files in the per-channel dir.
>
> Without a re-ordering hack, does this mean mean that essentially
> EVERYONE is using SOUGHT wrong? This is a bit worrisome.
You'd be closer with a lower-cased "everyo
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
l. With 3.3.x the plan is, to
frequently perform mass-checks and re-scoring, distributed via the
regular channel. This includes a recent snapshot of the Sought rules, so
the dedicated channel is almost obsolete. Alas, the re-scoring currently
does not happen as we plan for.
> What's more, I
Hi all,
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 different to the
same-named rules that are within t
On 10/14/2010 5:30 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
any work has been done on the bug?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
According to the bug, quite obviously, no one has been working on it.
Until your patch just today. Thanks!
Yes, I decided this was a logic is
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 12:30 -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> On 2010/03/16 5:03 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >> In order to properly open a feature request, I'd like to get a better
> >> idea where you're going with this. It seems to me that a new exit code
> >> from sa-update would be more app
On 2010/03/16 5:03 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
How is this messing you up? This should not affect any of your other
channels. The only effect is that the sought rules don't get updated.
I'm not sure how everyone else is doing it, but my script checks for
updates using --channel
> JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_3
> > score JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD_ANY 3.0
> Bug 6155 is now closed, but the SOUGHT rules still have a score of 0.
> Anyone have an idea on when these rules will be activated again?
The zero score request applies *only* to the SOUGHT_FRAUD sub-set. It
does *not* affect
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
> >>> How is this messing you up? This should not affect any of your other
> >>> channels. The only effect is that the sought rules don't get updated.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how everyone else is doing it, but my script checks for
> >
Jason,
> In order to properly open a feature request, I'd like to get a better
> idea where you're going with this. It seems to me that a new exit code
> from sa-update would be more appropriate than running sa-compile every
> time just in case. Maybe I misunderstand?
Yes, that's what I had in
On 2010/03/16 2:44 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 19:37:02 Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2010/03/16 9:30 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
How is this messing you up? This should not affect any of your other
channels. The only effect is that the sought rules don't get updated.
I&
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 19:37:02 Jason Bertoch wrote:
> On 2010/03/16 9:30 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > How is this messing you up? This should not affect any of your other
> > channels. The only effect is that the sought rules don't get updated.
>
> I'm not sur
On 2010/03/16 9:30 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
How is this messing you up? This should not affect any of your other
channels. The only effect is that the sought rules don't get updated.
I'm not sure how everyone else is doing it, but my script checks for
updates using --channelfile,
his messing you up? This should not affect any of your other
channels. The only effect is that the sought rules don't get updated.
--
Bowie
On Monday 15 March 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>On 15/03/2010 11:07 PM, j wrote:
>>> I've been having the same problem from several locations/ISPs, since
>>> mid-Saturday.
>>> "500 Can't connect to yerp.org:80 (connect: timeout)"
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Anyone figure this out? I have received the sa
On 15/03/2010 11:07 PM, j wrote:
>> I've been having the same problem from several locations/ISPs, since
>> mid-Saturday.
>> "500 Can't connect to yerp.org:80 (connect: timeout)"
>>
>> Dave
>
> Anyone figure this out? I have received the same yerp.org down errors and
> it's
> screwing up my SA r
> I've been having the same problem from several locations/ISPs, since
> mid-Saturday.
> "500 Can't connect to yerp.org:80 (connect: timeout)"
>
> Dave
Anyone figure this out? I have received the same yerp.org down errors and it's
screwing up my SA royally. I guess this is "what we get" when we
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Giampaolo Tomassoni
wrote:
> It seems that the yerp.org www server is irresponsive.
>
> To my knowledge, that server was hosting the sought.rules.yerp.org update
> channel.
>
> Anybody knows if it is a transient problem or if that channel moved
> elsewhere?
>
> Reg
Giampaolo Tomassoni a écrit :
> It seems that the yerp.org www server is irresponsive.
>
> To my knowledge, that server was hosting the sought.rules.yerp.org update
> channel.
>
> Anybody knows if it is a transient problem or if that channel moved
> elsewhere?
>
it was working yesterday. most p
It seems that the yerp.org www server is irresponsive.
To my knowledge, that server was hosting the sought.rules.yerp.org update
channel.
Anybody knows if it is a transient problem or if that channel moved
elsewhere?
Regards,
Giampaolo
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
I would like to confirm bowie's point. I see the exact same behavior in my
stats.
Sought rules used to be in my top15 now , while its much further down the list
for the past weeks stats.
I can't offer any explanation, we haven't changed out setup in many months.
But for us as well
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 goo
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
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:
TOP SPAM RULES
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 a
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
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_F
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,
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
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.
>
> Thank
Update returned sought rules 1/31/2010.
Had to pinch myself 2.5 times (1 per month)
to be sure.
Thanks.
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 i
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
e:
> >> 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,
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
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,
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
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:
d updated every
>> 4 hours or so.
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SoughtRules
>
> Is there a way to examine the sought rules *before* installing them into
> my spamassassin? Or at least a 'readme' so that if I download them via
> sa-update I can know
dated every
4 hours or so.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SoughtRules
Is there a way to examine the sought rules *before* installing them into
my spamassassin? Or at least a 'readme' so that if I download them via
sa-update I can know which files will be created and how to remove
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
