kud...@netzero.com wrote:
> OK sounds great. I also wanted to mention that the test email does not get
> marked. Is the rule here below not correct in the users' .procmailrc file?
>
> .:0fw:
> | /usr/bin/spamc
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> mail/Caughtspam
That loo
OK sounds great. I also wanted to mention that the test email does not get
marked. Is the rule here below not correct in the users' .procmailrc file?
.:0fw:
| /usr/bin/spamc
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
mail/Caughtspam
-- Original Message --
From: Kris Deugau
To:
On 2016-06-08 18:53, Joe Quinn wrote:
Usually you don't want to be autolearning at all, and only train with
messages that have been reviewed by a human. It's very easy for a
Bayes DB to spiral out of control after even just one or two wrong
results.
will setting this to -50 make it autolearn s
On 6/8/2016 12:39 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
kud...@netzero.com wrote:
We're running SA 3.4.1 with sendmail on Fedora Core 22. Every users has a
.procmailrc upon creation of the user but we have some legacy users being
inundated. If I just create a /etc/procmailrc will SA look at that
kud...@netzero.com wrote:
> We're running SA 3.4.1 with sendmail on Fedora Core 22. Every users has a
> .procmailrc upon creation of the user but we have some legacy users being
> inundated. If I just create a /etc/procmailrc will SA look at that first?
Usually. However, it'
We're running SA 3.4.1 with sendmail on Fedora Core 22. Every users has a
.procmailrc upon creation of the user but we have some legacy users being
inundated. If I just create a /etc/procmailrc will SA look at that first? Does
anyone have an example of a 2016-friendly local.cf file? Her
On 04/22/2013 09:29 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
Are you ready/willing to report spam you receive to spamcop.net, razor,
pyzor, ...?
On 22.04.13 15:01, Thomas Cameron wrote:
That's an interesting question...
Each user has their own spam folders, so I guess I should create a
cron job per user
On 2013/04/22 06:27, Thomas Cameron wrote:
On 04/08/2013 03:52 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
[...]
I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I want to use
the X-S
On 04/22/2013 09:29 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
False positives in super-spam (>10 SA score) should be very rare.
Exactly my point.
Are you ready/willing to report spam you receive to spamcop.net, razor,
pyzor, ...?
That's an interesting question...
Each user has their own spam folders, so
On 04/22/2013 09:03 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.04.13 08:27, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Currently I'm using procmail recipes for individual users, but I'm
leaning heavily towards going back to spamass-milter, and rejecting
everything that scores 10 or more.
with thing like spamass-milte
Andrzej A. Filip skrev den 2013-04-22 16:29:
Are you ready/willing to report spam you receive to spamcop.net,
razor,
pyzor, ...?
or dnswl, return-path ? :)
--
senders that put my email into body content will deliver it to my own
trashcan, so if you like to get reply, dont do it
On 04/22/2013 03:27 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 03:52 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
>> On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
>>> should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I wan
On 22.04.13 08:27, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Currently I'm using procmail recipes for individual users, but I'm
leaning heavily towards going back to spamass-milter, and rejecting
everything that scores 10 or more.
with thing like spamass-milter I found REFUSING mail (not devnulling!)
sa safe. I a
On 04/08/2013 03:52 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
[...]
I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I want to use
the X-Spam-Level header. But since it uses asterisk
mails each user daily about the cumulative stuff for him/her in
quarantine, but it is rather rare that there are false positives
requesting an action. The quarantine occurs in one folder per day, and a
crontab purges folder older than a week.
My .procmailrc (apart from diverting some ver
On Monday, April 08, 2013 05:06:57 PM Walter Hurry wrote:
> I agree that dev-nulling is generally a bad idea, but there may be
> exceptions.
>
> For example, I dump everything from hinet.net straight onto the floor.
FWIW, I get ham from hinet.net.
IMHO, it is not appropriate to drop mail no matt
egular Expressions, there are still quite some
> > > differences to other regex engines,
>
> I got sufficiently fed up with procmail that I switched to
> Email::Filter from CPAN. If that's an option for you, I strongly
> recommend it. If you use SpamAssassin, you may already enjoy Perl
tly fed up with procmail that I switched to
Email::Filter from CPAN. If that's an option for you, I strongly
recommend it. If you use SpamAssassin, you may already enjoy Perl hacking.
My .procmailrc:
:0
| /usr/bin/perl /home/dfs/.mail-filter.pl >> /home/dfs/.mail-filter.log 2>
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > * ^X-Spam-Level: \*{10}
>
> Unfortunately, no. While procmail implements some flavor of "extended"
> Regular Expressions, there are still quite some differences to other
> regex engines, like egrep's or PCRE. Most notably, the repetition
> opera
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 21:44 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
[ Bunch of good advise snipped. ]
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
> devnull/
>
> Since procmail uses Extended Regular Expressions there is one more
> optimization I would make. I wouldn't list out every star. It gets
> har
On 4/8/2013 1:06 PM, Walter Hurry wrote:
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:52:11 +0200, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
I would suggest redirecting such messages to another folder/maildir.
The folder should auto-purge old messages (e.g. older than 30 days).
Shit does happen. I remember at least one case in which
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:52:11 +0200, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
> I would suggest redirecting such messages to another folder/maildir.
> The folder should auto-purge old messages (e.g. older than 30 days).
> Shit does happen. I remember at least one case in which mailing list
> (ham) thread about spam
On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> [...]
> I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
> should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I want to use
> the X-Spam-Level header. But since it uses asterisks, which are
> interpreted as regex wildcar
On 04/07/2013 10:44 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Thomas Cameron wrote:
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level:.*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
I believe that would match 10 asterisks or more, and redirect the
e-mail to /dev/null. Am I right?
Mostly all okay. However I don't like the ".*" in the front of
it. That isn
Thomas Cameron wrote:
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Level:.*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
> /dev/null
>
> I believe that would match 10 asterisks or more, and redirect the
> e-mail to /dev/null. Am I right?
Mostly all okay. However I don't like the ".*" in the front of
it. That isn't likely to cause trouble but it
All -
I have a pretty simple .procmailrc setup for my home mail server. Right
now it looks like:
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
* < 256000
| spamc
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Flag:.*YES
spam
That dumps everything that is flagged as spam into my spam folder.
I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, tho
setup. So I wondered if
one could turn bayes learning on by way of a call to spamassassin in
.promailrc but have bayes learning turned off in a different call to
spamassassin?
I'm thinking something along this line (but turning bayes learning
off/on as needed):
.procmailrc:
:0 c
{
:0fw
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, kk CHN wrote:
Anyone here using procmailrc for blocking spams coming in the
mailman mailing lists?
I'm not. If you do some google searches you'll find some mailman patches
that hook it directly up to SA. Any posting that scores high is held for
moderato
Anyone here using procmailrc for blocking spams coming in the
mailman mailing lists?
I installed spamassassin in my FreebSD box where I am running
postfix with mailman with 10 lists.
I edited main.cf & added mailbox_command=/usr/local/bin/procmail
-a "$EXTENSION" ,
and
I agree, this is not a SA issue. I confirmed it to myself yesterday when
I splited my original code in four small pieces. The only other thing I
should be investigating in more detail is the
hint posted by jdow
FROM_DAEMON is a keyword in procmail - from man procmailrc:
If the regular
be resolved completely before I made this
> changes in every users procmailrc file.
Ah, nice to see you didn't completely ignore the feedback. So, you do
have at least two different rc files you are working on -- one with the
fixed rules, and this extended one...
> 2. Seriously (and truly) di
Dear Guenther,
I can understand your frustration. Did I take you suggestion? yes and no.
1. Made changes in one test account and did not implement on others.
Waiting for the problem to be resolved completely before I made this
changes in every users procmailrc file.
2. Seriously (and truly
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:18 -0700, Jai Rangi wrote:
> I did more digging in this.
> I was able to simulate the error. I changed my procmailrc something
> like this.
> #Rule number 1
> :0f
> * ^[F|f]rom:.*aleks\.com
> *
> ^[m|M]essage-[i|I][D|d]:.*aleks\.com|^R
From: "Jai Rangi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello All,
I did more digging in this.
I was able to simulate the error. I changed my procmailrc something like
this.
#Rule number 1
:0f
* ^[F|f]rom:.*aleks\.com
*
^[m|M]essage-[i|I][D|d]:.*aleks\.com|^Received:.*(authenticated).*\.aleks\.co
Hello All,
I did more digging in this.
I was able to simulate the error. I changed my procmailrc something like
this.
#Rule number 1
:0f
* ^[F|f]rom:.*aleks\.com
*
^[m|M]essage-[i|I][D|d]:.*aleks\.com|^Received:.*(authenticated).*\.aleks\.com
* ^Return-Path:.*aleks\.com
| formail -A "X-
; >> I am not sure if I understand what do you mean by this,
> >> ***You wrote
> >> {^_^}
> >> **
That was just a default "signature"...
> >> Hello All,
> >> I am little confused here. I have this rule in my .procmailrc file.
> &g
u mean by this,
***You wrote
{^_^}
**
Thank you,
-Jai
jdow wrote:
From: "Jai Rangi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello All,
I am little confused here. I have this
Look at the line I underlined. Your rule decided you sent the email so
exempted it.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Jai Rangi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am not sure if I understand what do you mean by this,
***You wrote
{^_^}
**
Thank you,
-Jai
jdow wro
I am not sure if I understand what do you mean by this,
***You wrote
{^_^}
**
Thank you,
-Jai
jdow wrote:
From: "Jai Rangi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello All,
I am little confused here. I have this rule in my .procmailrc file.
:0f
* ^[F|f]rom:.*ale
From: "Jai Rangi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello All,
I am little confused here. I have this rule in my .procmailrc file.
:0f
* ^[F|f]rom:.*aleks\.com
*
^[m|M]essage-[i|I][D|d]:.*aleks\.com|^Received:.*(authenticated).*\.aleks\.com
| formail -A"X-ALEKS-Spam: none"
#:
Hello All,
I am little confused here. I have this rule in my .procmailrc file.
:0f
* ^[F|f]rom:.*aleks\.com
*
^[m|M]essage-[i|I][D|d]:.*aleks\.com|^Received:.*(authenticated).*\.aleks\.com
| formail -A"X-ALEKS-Spam: none"
#:0fwE
:0fw
* < 256000
* !^X-ALEKS-Spam: none
* !^FROM_
On Sunday 08 April 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Greetings;
>>
>> trigger phrases of the ip address, presented in the form of
>>
>> * ^X-Originating-IP: "from \[xxx\.xxx\.xxx\.xxx\]"
>>
>> don't seem to be working.
>>
>> Is my syntax for the use of the '\'
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> trigger phrases of the ip address, presented in the form of
>
> * ^X-Originating-IP: "from \[xxx\.xxx\.xxx\.xxx\]"
>
> don't seem to be working.
>
> Is my syntax for the use of the '\' escape wrong?
No, but I question the quotes - are t
Gene Heskett wrote:
> Subject: Re: procmailrc question
Procmail questions are offtopic for the spamassassin list. You should
ask those in a procmail users forum. However I can't resist...
> trigger phrases of the ip address, presented in the form of
>
> * ^X-Originating-IP:
Greetings;
trigger phrases of the ip address, presented in the form of
* ^X-Originating-IP: "from \[xxx\.xxx\.xxx\.xxx\]"
don't seem to be working.
Is my syntax for the use of the '\' escape wrong?
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, an
On Friday 26 January 2007 15:01, Eddie wrote:
> I've been testing my SA configuration using spamc in my private
> .procmailrc. Everything is working well (I think :-) ). As this setup is
> going to be used by 4 or 5 acounts on this box, I thought it would make
> more sense to us
I've been testing my SA configuration using spamc in my private .procmailrc.
Everything is working well (I think :-) ). As this setup is going to be used
by 4 or 5 acounts on this box, I thought it would make more sense to
use /etc/procmailrc instead of creating a bunch of private .procm
Systemwide I use this so everything get scanned:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> cat /etc/procmailrc
VERBOSE=on
ORGMAIL=Mailbox
MAILDIR=$HOME
#LOGFILE=procmail-log
DROPPRIVS=yes
:0fw
* < 128000
| spamc
:f:lock-file
*
| /usr/bin/formail -a "Status: O"
INCLUDERC=.procmailrc
:0:lockfil
t;> At he moment my maximum SA score is 3.0 and this seems to stop 99% of spam
=>> without marking wanted mail as spam.
=>>
=>> Now I get like +200 mails in my spam folder marked as [SPAM] but would like
=>> to delete these mails instead of filtering them in a folder, so
get like +200 mails in my spam folder marked as [SPAM] but would
like
to delete these mails instead of filtering them in a folder, so I poked
around with my .procmailrc but it doesn't seem to work OK.
This is spam delete option would be only for me and not for other people
using the mailser
On 1/10/07, D Ivago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:0:
* ^Subject:.*\<[SPAM]\>
/dev/null
Square brackets have special meaning: [SPAM] is a character class
matching one of any of the characters S, P, A, or M. What you need
is:
:0
* ^Subject:.*\<\[SPAM\]
/dev/null
However, I'd not recommend that.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, D Ivago wrote:
> I just added the 3 last lines as seen on a webpage but it doesn't
> work, any suggestions what I exactely need to put in there?
Take a look at the spamassassin procmail file in
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/
Note that you *do* have to edit it to f
t would like
to delete these mails instead of filtering them in a folder, so I poked
around with my .procmailrc but it doesn't seem to work OK.
This is spam delete option would be only for me and not for other people
using the mailserver so I have this in my /home/ivago/.procmailrc file:
MAILDI
Whips and chains maybe?
{O.O}
- Original Message -
From: "JM Coursimault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a dit:
Explicit paths helped me.
# Sauvegardes Bacula #
:0
* ^Subject:.*Bacula:
AxperiaSARL/Admin/Bacula
==> $HOME/mail/AxperiaSARL/Admin/Bacula
How can I tell Ingo to generate this prefix ?
Thanks !
- Original Message - From: "JM Coursimault"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 00:59
Subject: Global vs per-user procmailrc filtering rules
Hello all,
I want to sort my incoming mail into
- Original Message -
From: "JM Coursimault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 00:59
Subject: Global vs per-user procmailrc filtering rules
Hello all,
I want to sort my incoming mail into various folders after it has been processed
by spamc/spamd.
Hello all,
I want to sort my incoming mail into various folders after it has been processed
by spamc/spamd. But my per-user .procmailrc does not seem to be taken into
account.
I'm on a Mandriva 2006. My packages are
spamassassin-3.0.4-3.2.20060mdk
spamassassin-spamc-3.0.4-3.2.200
ou really insist on doing so, read and understand the procmail and
procmailrc man pages, and be prepared to not be able to send mail to
much of anyone in about six months.
-kgd
AIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
*From:* Alex Jalali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Monday, February 27, 2006 2:49 AM
*To:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*Subject:* Rejecting emails in procmailrc?
Hello,
How can I reject mails that have a high score
n the floor. You virtually NEVER
reject to the right place.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rejecting emails in procmailrc?If you are using Postfix you can do something
like this in header_checks :
/^X-Spam-Level: \*{20}.*/ REJECT
Title: Rejecting emails in procmailrc?
If you
are using Postfix you can do something like this in header_checks
:
/^X-Spam-Level:
\*{20}.*/ REJECT Spam content
rejected.
(Test the
syntax, but I think the above is correct or very very
close.)
header_checks is
run as a
Alex Jalali wrote:
> Hello,
>
> How can I reject mails that have a high score along with a reason
> message instead of moving them to a folder?
>
>
> I am using this in procmailrc to send spams to junk mail folder which
> works fine.
>
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-St
From: "Alex Jalali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello,
How can I reject mails that have a high score along with a reason message
instead of moving them to a folder?
I am using this in procmailrc to send spams to junk mail folder which works
fine.
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
/${HOME}/&#
Title: Rejecting emails in procmailrc?
Hello,
How can I reject mails that have a high score along with a reason message instead of moving them to a folder?
I am using this in procmailrc to send spams to junk mail folder which works fine.
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
/${HOME}/'J
nt
filters if anything like a Bayes filter is involved.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "galili assaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thank you for the fast reply,
But I need somethig a little bit more complicated:
I want to ensure the a whole .procmailrc execution will be complete
Thank you for the fast reply,
But I need somethig a little bit more complicated:
I want to ensure the a whole .procmailrc execution will be completed before a
next begins.
I am trying to do a small experiment : In my .procmailrc I call to 3 different
spamfilter, and then I write the results to a
fast reply,
But I need somethig a little bit more complicated:
I want to ensure the a whole .procmailrc execution will be completed before a next
begins.
I am trying to do a small experiment : In my .procmailrc I call to 3 different
spamfilter, and then I write the results to a file. there for I
From: "galili assaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello all,
I am using spamassasin in .procmailrc (unix account).
my question is about .procmailrc:
is .procmailrc synchronized? I mean, if two new mails are coming to my accout, will the
first .procmailrc script execution finish b
Thank you for the fast reply,
But I need somethig a little bit more complicated:
I want to ensure the a whole .procmailrc execution will be completed before a
next begins.
I am trying to do a small experiment : In my .procmailrc I call to 3 different
spamfilter, and then I write the results to a
I am using spamassasin in .procmailrc (unix account).
my question is about .procmailrc:
is .procmailrc synchronized? I mean, if two new mails are coming to my
accout, will the first .procmailrc script execution finish before the
second execution will start?
I am trying to do something so the
Hello all,
I am using spamassasin in .procmailrc (unix account).
my question is about .procmailrc:
is .procmailrc synchronized? I mean, if two new mails are coming to my accout,
will the first .procmailrc script execution finish before the second execution
will start?
I am trying to do something
Hi All
I am facing one issue with procmailrc file when spamassassin is run
through procmailrc as
I call spamc from /etc/procmailrc, and it runs in privilege mode for
all my users.
This way they can put any thing in the file and in mins can get access
to the root user. so big security risk to
Pál László (Sq.) wrote:
It looks this entry has been skipped somehow. Other rule moving spam
police messages to /dev/nul works fine.
SA invoked by amavisd
L:
Hi,
Sorry, I don't know anything about amavisd... I assume SA is being
called BEFORE procmail kicks in for delivery?
> here is how I do it
> then I don't have to count stars :)
>
> :0 H:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: +(yes|no), +score=\/[^. ]*
> * ? (( ${MATCH} > 14 ))
> /dev/null
Just curious - won't that /dev/null a ham message that scores higher than 14
also?
You seem to be matching against spam-status = no there, if
Chris Thielen wrote:
Pál László (Sq.) wrote:
I also would like to remove spams over a certain level, so I'v created
the following .procmailrc entry
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
It seems not working. What is the problem?
Looks fine to me. Is that recipe in
sing chain?
Here is my complete .procmailrc
Is there any way to set-up this /dev/nul behaviour systemwide?
There should be an /etc/procmailrc where you can specify global procmail
recipes.
# Please check if all the paths in PATH are reachable, remove the ones
that
# are not.
PATH= $
Pál László (Sq.) wrote:
I also would like to remove spams over a certain level, so I'v created
the following .procmailrc entry
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
It seems not working. What is the problem?
Looks fine to me. Is that recipe in your procmailrc
gt; I also would like to remove spams over a certain level, so I'v created
> the following .procmailrc entry
>
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
> /dev/null
>
> It seems not working. What is the problem?
>
> Thank you for y
At 11:52 AM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
I believe that it should be
* ^X-Spam-Level:.\*
use_razor2 1
use_dcc 1
use_pyzor 1
I also would like to remove spams over a certain level, so I'v created
the following .procmailrc entry
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
It seems not working. What is the problem?
Thank you for your
Jake Colman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/03/2005
02:47:15 PM:
> DBF> If the loadave does -not- go up (due to waiting
for things like DNS
> DBF> queries) then you'll have to manually trigger
the queuing behavior.
> DBF> Edit your sendmail.cf (or .mc) file to add the
'Expensive' flag ("
> "DBF" == David B Funk writes:
DBF> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jake Colman wrote:
>>
>> I posted this problem last week and was told that it might be due to an
>> SA problem when overwhelmed by too many connections. This problem only
>> occurs when my server has been off-line and
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jake Colman wrote:
>
> I posted this problem last week and was told that it might be due to an SA
> problem when overwhelmed by too many connections. This problem only occurs
> when my server has been off-line and then gets swamped from the backup MX
> once it comes back on-li
nitial batch of emails that I receive are clearly missing my SA headers.
> This seems to imply that SA ignored it.
Enable debugging in procmailrc and replicate the situation. Read the logs,
see what procmail thinks is happening.
I posted this problem last week and was told that it might be due to an SA
problem when overwhelmed by too many connections. This problem only occurs
when my server has been off-line and then gets swamped from the backup MX
once it comes back on-line.
I use the default number of spamd children a
s spam mail. I plan to use .procmailrc, becuase it
> overrides procmailrc. What do you think?
>
On our system, I setup the system procmailrc to not handle the email
marked as spam for those users who want their own handling.
The users .procmailrc then does the handling.
; as spam mail. I plan to use .procmailrc, becuase it
> overrides procmailrc. What do you think?
It won't work. .procmailrc does not override /etc/procmailrc, it is
processed *after* the global /etc/procmailrc.
Suggestion: divide classification and disposition into two different
rules
All,
I have a system setting in procmail which puts email
marked as spam from spamassassin into each user's
spambucket at the server side. But some user wants
the spam to be deliver to them marked by spamassassin
as spam mail. I plan to use .procmailrc, becuase it
overrides procmailrc. Wh
ChupaCabra wrote:
I took the trailing slash off and it was just chunking my mail into the
Maildir. Not in tmp, new or current. The users didn't like that and
then I had to go put them in the right spot. :-)
Check the man pages for procmail. the trailing slash tells it to use
Maildir format
I took the trailing slash off and it was just chunking my mail into the
Maildir. Not in tmp, new or current. The users didn't like that and
then I had to go put them in the right spot. :-)
The \[SPAM\] escapes worked wonders though.
Bob Proulx wrote:
You need to understand that Maildir forma
ChupaCabra wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail
> > DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/Maildir/
> >
> >You have MAILDIR in $HOME so this is a change from that and moves it
> >into $HOME/Mail. But as a user I would hate my ISP if they put
> >$MAILDIR in $HOME. Use a subdirectory!
>
> the actual directo
On 17 Nov 2004 Alex Pleiner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* ChupaCabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-16 17:11]:
#:0:
#* ^Subject:.*[SPAM]
#$HOME/probably-spam/
Consider quoting the brackets:
* ^Subject: \[SPAM\]
Hopefully that will solve the problem, but in addition I
recommend that you change these
* ChupaCabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-16 17:11]:
> Is it not kosher to have both a /etc/procmailrc and a $USER/.procmailrc
> #:0:
> #* ^Subject:.*[SPAM]
> #$HOME/probably-spam/
Consider quoting the brackets:
* ^Subject: \[SPAM\]
Alex
--
Alex Pleiner
|-Original Message-
|From: ChupaCabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 16 November 2004 17:32
|To: SpamAssassin list
|Subject: Re: kinda OT procmailrc
|
||That seems to have solved some of my difficulty but I am still
|getting this is my procmaillog.
|
|
|###
| From [EMAIL
procmail: No match on "^X-Spam-Flag: Yes"
> procmail: No match on "^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*"
> procmail: Assigning
> "PATH=/home/info/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin"
> procmail: Rcfile: "/home/info/.procmailrc&q
Bob Proulx wrote:
ChupaCabra wrote:
Is it not kosher to have both a /etc/procmailrc and a $USER/.procmailrc
That is okay. But I think your problem is that you have set both
DEFAULT and MAILDIR to the same location.
here is my /etc/procmailrc
VERBOSE=yes
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
DEFAULT
ChupaCabra wrote:
> Is it not kosher to have both a /etc/procmailrc and a $USER/.procmailrc
That is okay. But I think your problem is that you have set both
DEFAULT and MAILDIR to the same location.
> here is my /etc/procmailrc
>
> VERBOSE=yes
> MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
> DEF
Is it not kosher to have both a /etc/procmailrc and a $USER/.procmailrc
here is my /etc/procmailrc
VERBOSE=yes
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
DEFAULT=$HOME/Maildir/
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmaillog
DROPPRIVS=yes
COMSAT=no
:0fw
* < 256000
| spamc
# All mail tagged as spam (eg. with a score higher than
> -Original Message-
> From: marti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Spamassassin
> Subject: RE: PROCMAILRC problem
>
>
>
>
> |-Original Message-
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 09:53:03PM -, marti wrote:
> || /usr/bin/spamc -f
> Not sure what the -f suffix is for, I see no such suffix in the man pages
It's a deprecated option. It's accepted but doesn't do anything these days.
fyi.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"I find this a nice feature b
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
