On 17.01.09 11:27, RobertH wrote:
> why not consider a phish a type of malware, it is bad code and you will
> realistically get bad code on your workstation if you go there and start
> clicking OK etc
I do, but some others do not, so they scan two times...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantom
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:58:48AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and
> > replace
> > [SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
>
> If you mean header_checks, you can't. header_checks operate on headers
> ONE at a time. you can't tell
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz a écrit :
> Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and replace
> [SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
>
If you mean header_checks, you can't. header_checks operate on headers
ONE at a time. you can't tell it to rewrite the subject based
>
> I find it very silly to try anything but rejecting of the virus.
>
> (unless as was stated before it's a phish, which is not a virus)
> --
> Matus UHLAR
we would agree, yet we take it a lil farther.
we smtp reject spam and virus and other signatures etc.
if a client had sincerely diffe
On 17.01.09 12:19, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and
> replace [SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
I find it very silly to try anything but rejecting of the virus.
(unless as was stated before it's a phish, which is no
Then I should use postfix regexp capabilities to rewrite subject and replace
[SPAM] with [VIRII] in case X-Spam-Virus: Yes
Thanks
LD
On Friday 16 January 2009 00:38:07 Evan Platt wrote:
> At 08:53 PM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
> >Thanks, it works
> >
> >How ever I have a question. In my configurati
> > - that sbl-xbl is obsolete and soon may stop working (zen.spamhaus.org
> > now does the job)
On 16.01.09 00:59, Bazooka Joe wrote:
> that will be a shame because some of us don't want Policy Block List
What about querying zen and using only results for SBL/XBL ?
Note that "obsolete" means sp
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:38:07PM -0800, Evan Platt wrote:
> At 08:53 PM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>> Thanks, it works
>>
>> How ever I have a question. In my configuration I have to mark subject with
>> "[SPAM]"
>>
>> How I can tell SA to use another mark "[VIRII]" if clamav plug marks mail.
>
> I c
>
> You should learn
> - how to properly reply an e-mail (first remove useles crap)
ahh wow!
>
> - that sbl-xbl is obsolete and soon may stop working (zen.spamhaus.org now
> does the job)
>
that will be a shame because some of us don't want Policy Block List
> The rest is up to you. I was just
At 08:53 PM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
Thanks, it works
How ever I have a question. In my configuration I have to mark subject with
"[SPAM]"
How I can tell SA to use another mark "[VIRII]" if clamav plug marks mail.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe SpamAssassin can do that.
You'll need to d
Thanks, it works
How ever I have a question. In my configuration I have to mark subject with
"[SPAM]"
How I can tell SA to use another mark "[VIRII]" if clamav plug marks mail.
TIA
On Saturday 03 January 2009 03:53:12 Justin Mason wrote:
> John Hardin writes:
> >On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Dani
On Jan 7, 2009, at 5:10 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, January 6, 2009 03:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
Check your .pre files to make sure the shortcircuit plugin is loaded
in one of them. (Note: loadplugin statements added to local.cf will
NOT work, they should be in the .pre files)
is this
On Tue, January 6, 2009 03:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Check your .pre files to make sure the shortcircuit plugin is loaded
> in one of them. (Note: loadplugin statements added to local.cf will
> NOT work, they should be in the .pre files)
is this so in 3.3 svn ?
in 3.2.5 it works olso from local.
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> I did try your example, i'm getting:
>
>
> Jan 5 08:40:16 soekris spamd[24765]: config: failed to parse line,
> skipping, in "/etc/mail/spamassassin/clamav.cf": shortcircuit CLAMAV spam
>
>
>
> I'm missing something?
Sounds like you don't have the shortcircuit plug
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote on Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:50:59 -0600:
> I'm missing something?
did you enable shortcircuiting?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
I did try your example, i'm getting:
Jan 5 08:40:16 soekris spamd[24765]: config: failed to parse line, skipping,
in "/etc/mail/spamassassin/clamav.cf": shortcircuit CLAMAV spam
I'm missing something?
LD
On Saturday 03 January 2009 03:53:12 Justin Mason wrote:
> John Hardin writes:
> >On Fri
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> > I also agree clamav is more lightweight than SA. I run clamav-milter, (runs
> > before spamass-milter). Since I don't want/need viruses nor phishes, I am
> > happy to drop them.
On 03.01.09 17:37, Bazooka Joe wrote:
> I do it the exact o
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>> >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
>> >> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
>
>> RobertH wrote:
>> > why do the opposite of the logical?
>
> On 03.01.09 17:42, Matt Kett
On 03.01.09 19:23, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> I feel this because my CPU consumption goes up when clamav is working.
> However, Im testing solution you givme.
If you have some solution that uses clamscan (not clamdscan), especially
with versions of clamav older than 0.91, it costs much of t
Thankx
I feel this because my CPU consumption goes up when clamav is working.
However, Im testing solution you givme.
Thankx
On Saturday 03 January 2009 17:10:25 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
> > >> clamav *LAST* and
> >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
> >> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
> RobertH wrote:
> > why do the opposite of the logical?
On 03.01.09 17:42, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Apparently the OP feels that clamav is heavy-weight enoug
RobertH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
>> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
>>
>>
>>
>
> why do the opposite of the logical?
>
>
Apparently the OP feels that clamav is heavy-weight enough to be wo
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
You mean
as a milter for example?
A clamav-only milter, yes, assuming your SA milter can be told to file or
discard the message and thus bypass AV scanning.
On Friday 02 January 2009 19:30:05 John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis
> >
> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run
> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
>
>
why do the opposite of the logical?
- rh
Many thanks
You give me an idea on how to configure
Regards,
LD
On Saturday 03 January 2009 08:48:39 Justin Mason wrote:
> Matt Kettler writes:
> >Justin Mason wrote:
> >> John Hardin writes:
> >>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> it is for short-circuit. Because like
Matt Kettler writes:
>Justin Mason wrote:
>> John Hardin writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
>>>
>>>
it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
>>>
Justin Mason wrote:
> John Hardin writes:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
>>> a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
>>> send to back virii test.
>>>
Justin Mason wrote on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:53:12 +:
> It's perfectly fine to run ClamAV as a plugin and shortcircuit;
Justin, he wants to short-circuit before clamav, not because of it.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 18:58 -0600, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> [...] and because virii test needs more power, Id like to send to back
> virii test.
Wrong. ClamAV takes less time and CPU per message than SA.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
John Hardin writes:
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
>
>> it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
>> a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
>> send to back virii test.
>
>You might have more success incorporating
You mean
as a milter for example?
On Friday 02 January 2009 19:30:05 John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> > it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
> > a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
> >
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> You are right
>
>
> it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
> a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
> send to back virii test.
Fair enough. Just be careful with shortcircuit if you're doing it based
on
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than
a Mail with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to
send to back virii test.
You might have more success incorporating clamav through some other way
You are right
it is for short-circuit. Because likehood of being SPAM is higher than a Mail
with virii, and because virii test needs more power, Id like to send to back
virii test.
What is the line to change priority?
TIA
LD
On Friday 02 January 2009 17:06:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
> Luis Dani
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
> Hi Spams,
>
>
> Afer finally do clamav scanning with sa-plugin I wonder to know when
> this test is done. I mean, if is it the first or last?
By default, the .cf file in
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin has no priority
declared, so it's going to ru
Hi Spams,
Afer finally do clamav scanning with sa-plugin I wonder to know when
this test is done. I mean, if is it the first or last?
Is there any way to force to be the last?
My hearders are these:
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: dlu...@okay.com.mx
Delivered-To: dlu...@okay.com.mx
Rec
36 matches
Mail list logo
