> -Original Message-
> From: Andrzej Adam Filip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:53 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Spamcop reporting? Anon or register?
>It is common for 419 spam to include links to innocen
Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2006, 1:55:48 AM, Andrzej Filip wrote:
>> + I spent 2-3s on average to confirm *myself* spamasssassin's verdict
>> of "classified as spam" and move message to spam-report folder
>> (mostly from spambox folder)
>> + *All* remaining
On Sunday, November 26, 2006, 1:55:48 AM, Andrzej Filip wrote:
> + I spent 2-3s on average to confirm *myself* spamasssassin's verdict of
> "classified as spam" and move message to spam-report folder
> (mostly from spambox folder)
> + *All* remaining actions [classification and reporting] are
zed URLs from the script and limit reporting only
>> to IP addresses of spam sources and spam relays.
>
>> You have merely suggested recommended/required "fine tuning" of auto ack
>> scripts/procedures.
>
> But the URIs are a key part of the spamCop reporting. I
On Saturday, November 25, 2006, 6:01:58 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> According to SA documentation, not registering with spamcop will lessen
> the 'weight' of your report to spamcop when you use the manual report
> spam features of spamcop.
> spamcop_to_address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (default: generi
On Saturday, November 25, 2006, 7:41:35 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrzej Adam Filip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:13 AM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Spamc
u have merely suggested recommended/required "fine tuning" of auto ack
> scripts/procedures.
But the URIs are a key part of the spamCop reporting. It's
useful for URI blacklists such as one of ours:
http://www.surbl.org/lists.html#sc
Rather than removing the URIs, it would be
"Michael Scheidell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrzej Adam Filip writes:
>> [...]
>> You may use spamcup or
>> http://anfi.homeunix.net/perl/spamcop-ack.pl to automatically
>> acknowledge spamcop.net reports submitted by
>> "spamassassin -r" via SMTP.
>
> This is a bad idea.
> 75% of the lin
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrzej Adam Filip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:13 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Spamcop reporting? Anon or register?
> You may use spamcup or
> http://anfi.homeunix.net/p
"Michael Scheidell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to SA documentation, not registering with spamcop will lessen
> the 'weight' of your report to spamcop when you use the manual report
> spam features of spamcop.
>
> spamcop_to_address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (default: generic reporting address
According to SA documentation, not registering with spamcop will lessen
the 'weight' of your report to spamcop when you use the manual report
spam features of spamcop.
spamcop_to_address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (default: generic reporting address)
Your customized SpamCop report submission address. Y
The following patches apply to SA 3.0.4 only. Adds a new parameter to local.cf:
use_spamcop ( 0 | 1 )
*** Conf.pm.origMon Jun 6 04:31:23 2005
--- Conf.pm Wed Sep 14 23:27:06 2005
***
*** 1108,1113
--- 1108,1125
}
});
+ =item use_spamcop ( 0 | 1 )
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
Hi,
I have just started reporting spam and I wonder if SpamCop really
expects it's users to confirm every submission in the web interface?
Yes, they do. This is to ensure a minimum of false positives. By
default, I only report things that do NO
On Thursday 26 May 2005 01:55, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just started reporting spam and I wonder if SpamCop really
> expects it's users to confirm every submission in the web interface?
Yes. It ensures that most people are actually reporting spam. Doesn't take
that long really.
Hi,
I have just started reporting spam and I wonder if SpamCop really
expects it's users to confirm every submission in the web interface?
Tom
--
T h o m a s Z e h e t b a u e r ( TZ251 )
PGP encrypted mail preferred - KeyID 96FFCB89
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for key
Those, who ar
114.
Line 114 in my Socket.pm is:
if (!connect($sock, $addr)) {
I'm pretty sure this is related to spamcop reporting, because when I
run spamassassin -r on an email older than three days, I get the
error (well, not really error, I guess):
SpamCop -> message older than 3 days, not reporti
At 07:44 PM 11/30/2004, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Carlos Perez wrote:
>> Feature request to SA developers: turn off default SC reporting in
the next
>> release. No need to consume bandwidth as the generic reporting address is
>> not used.
I regularly talk to Julian about the reporting and it *is* b
Carlos Perez wrote:
>> Feature request to SA developers: turn off default SC reporting in the next
>> release. No need to consume bandwidth as the generic reporting address is
>> not used.
I regularly talk to Julian about the reporting and it *is* being used.
It just took Julian and the SpamCop
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:33:33AM -0700, Carlos Perez wrote:
> Feature request to SA developers: turn off default SC reporting in the next
> release. No need to consume bandwidth as the generic reporting address is
> not used.
The developers will likely not see things like this. Please open ti
I apologize for jumping into the thread late. I posted to the SpamCop forum
concerning how to report spams using the latest SA 3.0 release.
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3129
To summarize:
- generic SC reporting address in SA goes to bit bucket (might as well turn
off repo
> I did once completely automate this using a script that fired
> everything in my spam folder to spamcop, grepped 'sc?id' out of all
> the spamcop replies, opened lynx with a command script which searched
> for "Send Spam Report" and hit the link.
This would be better done with LWP, I think; scri
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Larry stipulated:
> > You could comment out the "spamcop_to_address" in your configuration
> > file. Then SA will report to the "generic" spamcop address. Your
> > reports won't be given as much weight (whatever that means) but you
> > won't get the confirmation emails eith
On Saturday, November 13, 2004, 7:41:23 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
> I've a question about setting up the spamcop_to_address. In the ::conf
> documentation it states:
> "Your customized SpamCop report submission address. You need to obtain this
> address by registering at "http://www.spamcop.net/"
I've a question about setting up the spamcop_to_address. In the ::conf
documentation it states:
"Your customized SpamCop report submission address. You need to obtain this
address by registering at "http://www.spamcop.net/";.
I assume this means paying for an account at spamcop, not just regi
Nix wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Larry stipulated:
> > You could comment out the "spamcop_to_address" in your configuration
> > file. Then SA will report to the "generic" spamcop address. Your
> > reports won't be given as much weight (whatever that means) but you
> > won't get the confirmation
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Larry stipulated:
> You could comment out the "spamcop_to_address" in your configuration
> file. Then SA will report to the "generic" spamcop address. Your
> reports won't be given as much weight (whatever that means) but you
> won't get the confirmation emails either.
... a
Message-
From: Nix [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sensible way to use SpamCop reporting?
I installed SA 3.0 (from SVN branch head) last night and found to my
displeasure that it automatically reported all my spams to SpamCop.
Rather, that was fine: the downside was that SpamCop bombed me wi
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] stated:
> (And with >1000 spams a day, well,
> the stuff comes in faster than I could verify them by hand in any case.)
Note: where I said `verify', I meant `confirm' (i.e., with SpamCop). Mea
culpa.
Verifying that they're
only one who finds this makes SpamCop reporting nigh totally
useless? I've *already* verified that things are spam before feeding
them to `spamassassin -r': reading (rather, ditching) an email telling
me something I already know and wandering through a webform to verify
it, well, this ta
29 matches
Mail list logo
