On 05/12/2016 23:06, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, that's pretty much a requirement. You need a folder of ham (both
good ham and FPs) and a folder of spam (both spam and FNs) and you run
sa-learn to scan them and load the tokens into
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
On 05/12/2016 22:38, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
> OK, blindly following your suggestion yielded the following; does it
> tell you anything?
>
> Dec 5 22:20:11.805
On 05/12/2016 22:38, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
OK, blindly following your suggestion yielded the following; does it
tell you anything?
Dec 5 22:20:11.805 [30090] dbg: bayes: not available for scanning,
only 0 spam(s) in bayes DB < 2
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
OK, blindly following your suggestion yielded the following; does it tell you
anything?
Dec 5 22:20:11.805 [30090] dbg: bayes: not available for scanning, only 0
spam(s) in bayes DB < 200
0 spams. You need to train it with a
On 24/11/2016 13:09, RW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:33:19 +0100
Axb wrote:
On 11/24/2016 11:23 AM, Geoff Soper wrote:
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection,
they all had the following lines in the he
On 03/12/2016 19:23, RW wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 14:18:38 +
geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
Ah, I think I've been making an invalid assumption here...
Because every one of these messages had a UNPARSEABLE_RELAY and
nothing else, I thought that this issue was stopping any oth
On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 14:18:38 +
geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
> Ah, I think I've been making an invalid assumption here...
> Because every one of these messages had a UNPARSEABLE_RELAY and
> nothing else, I thought that this issue was stopping any other tests
> being applied. Wh
On 03/12/2016 13:57, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25/11/2016 11:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This says that the mail was received from webpage on your server,
and the
local mailer "nullmailer" seems have delivered it directly to you.
in fact, you don't know anything about this mail -
On 25/11/2016 11:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This says that the mail was received from webpage on your server,
and the
local mailer "nullmailer" seems have delivered it directly to you.
in fact, you don't know anything about this mail - it was apparently
received via HTTP, but the SendMai
On 28/11/2016 22:10, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
On 25/11/2016 11:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 24.11.16 10:23, Geoff Soper wrote:
Subject: Spam with attachments and UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting th
On 25/11/2016 11:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 24.11.16 10:23, Geoff Soper wrote:
Subject: Spam with attachments and UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection,
they all ha
On 2016-11-25 13:57, Bill Cole wrote:
> It LOOKS like that is being generated by a PHP script on the host that's
> delivering it, which appears to be running some atrocious mail handler
> calling itself 'nullmailer' that doesn't do Received headers in any
> useful way.
FWIW nullmailer is a res
On 25 Nov 2016, at 5:28, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
On 25/11/2016 10:26, Paul Stead wrote:
On 25/11/16 10:18, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 161124-7, 24/11/2016), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Infected
X-Attachment: INVOICE_.zip
On 25/11/2016 11:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 24.11.16 10:23, Geoff Soper wrote:
Subject: Spam with attachments and UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection,
they all ha
On 24.11.16 10:23, Geoff Soper wrote:
Subject: Spam with attachments and UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with
attachments getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon
inspection, they all had the following lines in the header:
On 25.11.16
On 25/11/2016 10:26, Paul Stead wrote:
On 25/11/16 10:18, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 161124-7, 24/11/2016), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Infected
X-Attachment: INVOICE_.zip#1783656308|>HQ2s9y6f.js Virus:
JS:LockyDownloader [Trj] Deleted
You
On 25/11/16 10:18, geoff.sa_users_161...@alphaworks.co.uk wrote:
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 161124-7, 24/11/2016), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Infected
X-Attachment: INVOICE_.zip#1783656308|>HQ2s9y6f.js Virus:
JS:LockyDownloader [Trj] Deleted
Your AV correctly identified the bad attach
On 24/11/2016 13:15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 24.11.16 10:23, Geoff Soper wrote:
Subject: Spam with attachments and UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection, they
all ha
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:09:28 +
RW wrote:
> UNPARSEABLE_RELAY is only a significant problem if it's on the edge of
> your internal or trusted network. These relays should be the
> first--force-expire entries in the above two headers - check that they
> are sensible.
Sorry, --force-expire got
On 24.11.16 10:23, Geoff Soper wrote:
Subject: Spam with attachments and UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection, they
all had the following lines in the header:
X-Spam-Ch
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:33:19 +0100
Axb wrote:
> On 11/24/2016 11:23 AM, Geoff Soper wrote:
> > For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
> > getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection,
> > they all had the following lines in the header:
> >
> > ...
> >
On 11/24/2016 11:23 AM, Geoff Soper wrote:
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection, they
all had the following lines in the header:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
server.alp
For a few weeks I've been suffering spam messages with attachments
getting through with a suspicious score of 0.0. Upon inspection, they
all had the following lines in the header:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
server.alphaworks.co.uk
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Sta
23 matches
Mail list logo
