[HEADS-UP] Changes to Validity SpamAssassin rules

Hi, if you are using rules that query Validity rbl (RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_* rules), make sure you have updated rules (at least dated 2024-04-23), otherwise you may encounter in FPs instead of hitting an overlimit response. Giovanni OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

Completely agree with Joe. Normally if we did that we saw some situation where they were using something other than a space perhaps a pipe or a plus or a non-printable character or something else. So we made the rest of the role like that to future proof it against other variants of the same spam.

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

On 4/23/21 2:52 PM, David B Funk wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote: I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: body    __KAM_WEB2  /INDIA based IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i I'm wondering if there is a good reason why a singe period is used instead of somethi

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, RW wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:52:40 -0500 (CDT) David B Funk wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote: I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i I'm wondering if there is a good

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:52:40 -0500 (CDT) David B Funk wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote: > > > I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: > > > > body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based > > IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i > > > > I'm wondering if there is a good reason wh

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote: I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i I'm wondering if there is a good reason why a singe period is used instead of something like \s+ which would catch multiple sp

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

On 2021-04-23 01:37 PM, Henrik K wrote: On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:03:33PM -0400, Steve Dondley wrote: I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i I'm wondering if there is a good reason why a singe period is used

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:03:33PM -0400, Steve Dondley wrote: > I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: > > body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based > IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i > > I'm wondering if there is a good reason why a singe period is used instead > of something like \s+

Re: Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

On 23.04.21 13:03, Steve Dondley wrote: I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i I'm wondering if there is a good reason why a singe period is used instead of something like \s+ which would catch multiple space

Why single periods in regex in spamassassin rules?

I'm looking at KAM.cf. There is this rule: body__KAM_WEB2 /INDIA based IT|indian.based.website|certified.it.company/i I'm wondering if there is a good reason why a singe period is used instead of something like \s+ which would catch multiple spaces whereas a singe period doesn't.

Re: Problem with SpamAssassin rules wiki. What is the new link ?

Most rules have (and all *should* have) a 'describe' line For example, for the rule MIME_HTML_MOSTLY I have a link to this wiki : https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/MIME_HTML_MOSTLY But apparently the documentation is no longer available and I don't find the new link.

Problem with SpamAssassin rules wiki. What is the new link ?

Dear SpamAssassin users/team, I have a little problem with *SpamAssassin*. I don't find the documentation for the rules. For example, for the rule MIME_HTML_MOSTLY I have a link to this wiki : https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/MIME_HTML_MOSTLY But apparently the documentation

Re: Latest Spamassassin Rules

On 10/27/2017 12:47 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote: On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:38:35PM -0500, Shane Wise wrote: Greetings, I am running version 3.4.1 of Spamassassin and my rules have not updated since June 24th.  When I run sa-update I receive the following: channel: current version is 1799552, new

Re: Latest Spamassassin Rules

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:38:35PM -0500, Shane Wise wrote: > Greetings, > > I am running version 3.4.1 of Spamassassin and my rules have not updated > since June 24th.  When I run sa-update I receive the following: > > channel: current version is 1799552, new version is 1799552, skipping > chann

Latest Spamassassin Rules

Greetings, I am running version 3.4.1 of Spamassassin and my rules have not updated since June 24th.  When I run sa-update I receive the following: channel: current version is 1799552, new version is 1799552, skipping channel Is this really still the most current?  If not what do I need to

Re: Small help for create a Spamassassin rules

Hi anyone can help me ? mydomain\.fr and mydomain\.com is a sample, it's not specifiquely only gtld that change regards olivier 2015-12-24 7:50 GMT+01:00 Olivier CALVANO : > Hi > > i request your help for create a small rules: > > i have a lot of domains, for two of this domain, i want create

Re: Small help for create a Spamassassin rules

create the domain rules: header CEFSCA001_DOMAIN_72_1 To =~ /mydomain\.(com|fr|net|org)/i header CEFSCA001_DOMAIN_72_2 Cc =~ /mydomain\.(com|fr|net|org)/i header CEFSCA001_DOMAIN_72_3 Apparently-To =~ /mydomain\.(com|fr|net|org)/i header CEFSCA001_DOMAIN_72_4 Delivered-To =~ /mydomain\.(com|fr|n

Re: Small help for create a Spamassassin rules

On 24.12.2015 8.50, Olivier CALVANO wrote: Hi i request your help for create a small rules: i have a lot of domains, for two of this domain, i want create a specific "whitelist_from" for this, i: create the domain rules: header CEFSCA001_DOMAIN_72_1 To =~ /mydomain\.com/i header CEFSCA001_DOM

Small help for create a Spamassassin rules

Hi i request your help for create a small rules: i have a lot of domains, for two of this domain, i want create a specific "whitelist_from" for this, i: create the domain rules: header CEFSCA001_DOMAIN_72_1 To =~ /mydomain\.com/i header CEFSCA001_DOMAIN_72_2 Cc =~ /mydomain\.com/i header CEFSCA

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 20/10/15 21:10, Axb wrote: On 10/20/2015 10:04 PM, RW wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:29:45 -0500 (CDT) sha...@shanew.net wrote: I already have rules that score for these tlds in received or envelope from, but I'm getting tired of making the regular expression longer and longer (in two diff

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 10/20/2015 10:04 PM, RW wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:29:45 -0500 (CDT) sha...@shanew.net wrote: I already have rules that score for these tlds in received or envelope from, but I'm getting tired of making the regular expression longer and longer (in two different places), and I know there'

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:29:45 -0500 (CDT) sha...@shanew.net wrote: > I already have rules that score for these tlds in received or envelope > from, but I'm getting tired of making the regular expression longer > and longer (in two different places), and I know there's a smarter > way. Whether I'm

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rob McEwen wrote: On 10/20/2015 12:13 PM, sha...@shanew.net wrote: Unlike Larry (and others) I DO want to block the vast majority of the new tlds, because we see nothing but spam from them (and my users tend toward the more false-positives than false-negatives side of th

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 10/20/2015 12:13 PM, sha...@shanew.net wrote: Unlike Larry (and others) I DO want to block the vast majority of the new tlds, because we see nothing but spam from them (and my users tend toward the more false-positives than false-negatives side of the spectrum). Rather than maintain a list of

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

I've got 3.4.1 installed and sa-update runs regularly. Unlike Larry (and others) I DO want to block the vast majority of the new tlds, because we see nothing but spam from them (and my users tend toward the more false-positives than false-negatives side of the spectrum). Rather than maintain a l

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

If you have 3.4.1 and use sa-update then we add new tlds to a rule file that is then parsed. This does not block those tlds. It let's the engine recognize the urls for further rules. If you have a tld that is missed and you are using 3.4.1 with sa-update, let us know. Regards, KAM On October

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 19 Oct 2015, at 15:22, Larry Goldman wrote: I found that much of the SPAM had a BAYES_00 score of -1.9, which was defeating the contribution of the other tests. A closer inspection of the raw source revealed invisible gibberish text which, I assume, is designed to thwart the default BAYES_0

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Larry Goldman wrote: I found that much of the SPAM had a BAYES_00 score of -1.9, which was defeating the contribution of the other tests. A closer inspection of the raw source revealed invisible gibberish text which, I assume, is designed to thwart the default BAYES_00 tes

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Daddy will upgrade to this new version of CPanel. As of yet, the best information I’ve found on the new TLDs features is here <http://uribl.com/>. Here <http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/> is a list of SA rules, but it is out of date as they are updated nightly in an effort t

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: At the end of the day, if you are having problems with new TLDs, ONE solution is to use something that uses SA 3.4.1 and has sa-update configured so you get updates with said new TLDs. I think maybe people are confused about how exactly this change

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 10:36 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > Self-hosting email is feasible if you have a proper business-fit > Internet connection: static IP, rDNS in your own domain, no filtering > or DNS hijacking. MacOS X Server isn't a horrible (any more... ) mail > server and if you're willing to

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 10/14/2015 12:00 PM, Bill Cole wrote: Describe, in detail, the new SA technology which fights abuse of new TLDs. Prior to v3.4.1, the mechanism for detecting and parsing hostnames to identify body URIs used an embedded array of hardcoded domains in Mail/SpamAssassin/Util/RegistrarBoundarie

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 13 Oct 2015, at 16:04, Larry Goldman wrote: Point me to the documentation of the SpamAssassin framework. You mentioned being a Mac user so in addition to the website Dianne pointed you to or manually installing from the SA source tarball, you can get a working installation with all of the

Re: Simplicity (was Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains)

On 13 Oct 2015, at 15:46, Dianne Skoll wrote: CPanel is just a "hosting control panel" used by a bazillion hosting providers. It's a more sophisticated version of Webmin and the like; Or *less* depending on your concept of 'sophisticated'... It is slicker, but it is much more tightly bound t

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 13 Oct 2015, at 15:08, Larry Goldman wrote: My experience to date is that GoDaddy doesn’t really support the internals of CPanel, and CPanel doesn’t provide end-user customer support either. Cheap is indeed cheap. Skilled individualized MTA & anti-spam support is NOT cheap. I figured I

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 10/13/2015 4:14 PM, Larry Goldman wrote: Way the best answer, Dianne! Thanks! To add a 3rd answer, I want you to know that you ARE correct. Godaddy provides you a service which is not functioning as you would like. Who they choose, what their vendors choose, etc. is not really your job as a

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Way the best answer, Dianne! Thanks! > On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:04:36 -0700 > Larry Goldman wrote: > >> Point me to the documentation of the SpamAssassin framework. Where >> are rules documented? What are the current rules? Describe, in >> det

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:11:49 -0400 Dianne Skoll wrote: > Or if you want an online resource, > https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.1.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html D'oh, that's a link to an old version... sorry. http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin.html is probab

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:04:36 -0700 Larry Goldman wrote: > Point me to the documentation of the SpamAssassin framework. Where > are rules documented? What are the current rules? Describe, in > detail, the new SA technology which fights abuse of new TLDs. man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf Or if you wa

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Point me to the documentation of the SpamAssassin framework. Where are rules documented? What are the current rules? Describe, in detail, the new SA technology which fights abuse of new TLDs. Thank you for your advice. I don’t really plan on devoting my life to administering my generic email se

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Am 13.10.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Larry Goldman: It seems that a basic function of an email service provider, these days, is to keep up with spam. There is nothing unusual about my email. SpamAssassin is a framework: a framework with seemingly no documentation at all no documentationat all? se

Re: Simplicity (was Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains)

On 10/13/2015 3:42 PM, Larry Goldman wrote: I’m ready to get down and dirty if necessary. As a customer of CPanel, I was expecting the “competent someone else who is supposed to simplify the process of managing an email server for me" already to be working for CPanel. Agreed. I think the issu

CPanel (was Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains)

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:48:58 -0700 Larry Goldman wrote: > SpamAssassin is a framework: a framework with seemingly no > documentation at all. I was considering downloading the source files > to see if the framework is documented there. Is that what it takes to > administer a mail service? Why can’

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

It seems that a basic function of an email service provider, these days, is to keep up with spam. There is nothing unusual about my email. SpamAssassin is a framework: a framework with seemingly no documentation at all. I was considering downloading the source files to see if the framework is d

Re: Simplicity (was Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains)

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:42:04 -0700 Larry Goldman wrote: > As a customer of CPanel, I was expecting the "competent someone else > who is supposed to simplify the process of managing an email server > for me" already to be working for CPanel. CPanel is just a "hosting control panel" used by a bazi

Re: Simplicity (was Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains)

I’m ready to get down and dirty if necessary. As a customer of CPanel, I was expecting the “competent someone else who is supposed to simplify the process of managing an email server for me" already to be working for CPanel. > On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote: > > On Tue, 13 O

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Am 13.10.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Larry Goldman: I couldn’t pay a full-time guy for what I’m paying to use CPanel. I was hoping/expecting that the $ all of us shared users of CPanel are paying for the product would eventually be paying a full-time guy/gurl to support the product. that is what y

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

I couldn’t pay a full-time guy for what I’m paying to use CPanel. I was hoping/expecting that the $ all of us shared users of CPanel are paying for the product would eventually be paying a full-time guy/gurl to support the product. > On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > it'

Simplicity (was Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains)

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:24:53 -0700 Larry Goldman wrote: > So, it is not possible to simplify the process of managing an email > server via an easy-to-use software user interface? I think if your goal is to simplify the process of managing an email server, your best bet is to pay someone else to

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Am 13.10.2015 um 21:24 schrieb Larry Goldman: So, it is not possible to simplify the process of managing an email server via an easy-to-use software user interface? not really someone needs to understand the setup *and* maintain it because spam is a moving target - there is no easy solutio

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

So, it is not possible to simplify the process of managing an email server via an easy-to-use software user interface? > On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > no! > > the idea of cpanel, webmin and what not is trying to provide a reduced and > limited interface for users with

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

no! the idea of cpanel, webmin and what not is trying to provide a reduced and limited interface for users with no clue and give them the felling they have some clue what they are doing if you rely on capnel you better maintain no public server at all, take money and pay somebody who knows w

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

The _idea_ of CPanel is a good one: a low-cost, do-it-all solution which a broader range of tech-savvy users can manage. It seems that the current GoDaddy/CPanel configuration I’m using is obviously not up to the task of distinguishing SPAM in today’s world. If there is not an easy fix within t

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

My experience to date is that GoDaddy doesn’t really support the internals of CPanel, and CPanel doesn’t provide end-user customer support either. I figured I would try to solve the problem myself (with this mailing list’s help), or consider hosting my own (OS X) email server so I have full cont

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Am 13.10.2015 um 21:02 schrieb Larry Goldman: I’ve seen CPanel hosted on several other ISPs. It would be quite unfortunate (for them and for their users) if their email product could not reliably catch spam. and i have seen so much shit from ISP's long ago that i started in 2005 to host an

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

I’ve seen CPanel hosted on several other ISPs. It would be quite unfortunate (for them and for their users) if their email product could not reliably catch spam. > On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 13.10.2015 um 20:40 schrieb Larry Goldman: >> It seems that CPanel

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 10/13/2015 2:55 PM, Larry Goldman wrote: It seems that the new domains are appearing faster than I can keep up. Continual manual updates by every SA admin seems unfeasible. How does SA solve this problem? By adding the TLDs to the config files distributed by sa-update that work with SA 3.

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

;>> top-level domains: .date, .win,, .faith, .racing. CPanel has options >>>> for specifiying SpamAssassin rules, but no other configuration files >>>> are readily available for modification. >> Can you tell me more about rule updates? >> Where are current

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

Am 13.10.2015 um 20:40 schrieb Larry Goldman: It seems that CPanel is an independent product that GoDaddy serves. It may be that the version of CPanel in use is not using up-to-date SA, which is a problem. How can I determine which version of SA is being used, without terminal access? you ca

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 10/13/2015 2:40 PM, Larry Goldman wrote: On Oct 13, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Kevin A. McGrail > wrote: On 10/12/2015 2:15 PM, Larry Goldman wrote: I’m using the CPanel shared hosting on GoDaddy. Inside there, SpamAssassin is running. GoDaddy might not be running sa-updat

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > On 10/12/2015 2:15 PM, Larry Goldman wrote: >> I’m using the CPanel shared hosting on GoDaddy. Inside there, SpamAssassin >> is running. > GoDaddy might not be running sa-update or a new enough version of SA to take > advantage of the

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

On 10/12/2015 2:15 PM, Larry Goldman wrote: I’m using the CPanel shared hosting on GoDaddy. Inside there, SpamAssassin is running. GoDaddy might not be running sa-update or a new enough version of SA to take advantage of the TLD updates we can push centrally.

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

,, .faith, .racing. CPanel has options for specifiying SpamAssassin rules, but no other configuration files are readily available for modification. Can you tell me more about rule updates? Where are current rules documented? The improvements mentions are for detection of these new TLDs so that the URIs

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

s new >> top-level domains: .date, .win,, .faith, .racing. CPanel has options >> for specifiying SpamAssassin rules, but no other configuration files >> are readily available for modification. >> > > Are you sure you can create actual SpamAssassin rules? As opposed t

Re: SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

that are abusing new > > top level domains; > > > I?m running SpamAssassin on CPanel shared hosting (GoDaddy). For > several weeks, I?ve been inundated with spam from various new > top-level domains: .date, .win,, .faith, .racing. CPanel has options > for specifiying SpamAssass

SpamAssassin Rules Regarding Abuse of New Top Level Domains

GoDaddy). For several weeks, I’ve been inundated with spam from various new top-level domains: .date, .win,, .faith, .racing. CPanel has options for specifiying SpamAssassin rules, but no other configuration files are readily available for modification. Where is this improved automation documented

Re: Spamassassin rules from sql

Thanks! That worked perfectly: blacklist_subject test On 02/01/2012 09:09 PM, Michael Parker wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Miguel Fernandes wrote: Hi! I'm just wondering, is there a limitation on the type of rules that can be added to the SpamassAssin rules table? Because a

Re: Spamassassin rules from sql

On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Miguel Fernandes wrote: > Hi! > > I'm just wondering, is there a limitation on the type of rules that can be > added to the SpamassAssin rules table? > Because adding something like (subject scoring): > > header TEST_SUBJECT Subject =~ /

Re: Spamassassin rules from sql

Miguel Fernandes wrote: Just tested with this: +--+-++ | username | preference | value | +--+-++ | @fatias.pt | header TEST_SUBJECT | Subject =~ /test/i | | @fatias.pt | score TEST_SUBJECT | 3

Re: Spamassassin rules from sql

On 02/01/2012 07:23 PM, Miguel Fernandes wrote: Just tested with this: +--+-++ | username | preference | value | +--+-++ | @fatias.pt | header TEST_SUBJECT | Subject =~ /test/i | | @fatias.pt

Re: Spamassassin rules from sql

replies! On 02/01/2012 05:01 PM, Axb wrote: On 02/01/2012 05:52 PM, Kris Deugau wrote: Miguel Fernandes wrote: Hi! I'm just wondering, is there a limitation on the type of rules that can be added to the SpamassAssin rules table? Because adding something like (subject scoring): h

Re: Spamassassin rules from sql

On 02/01/2012 05:52 PM, Kris Deugau wrote: Miguel Fernandes wrote: Hi! I'm just wondering, is there a limitation on the type of rules that can be added to the SpamassAssin rules table? Because adding something like (subject scoring): header TEST_SUBJECT Subject =~ /test/i (I've tri

Re: Spamassassin rules from sql

Miguel Fernandes wrote: Hi! I'm just wondering, is there a limitation on the type of rules that can be added to the SpamassAssin rules table? Because adding something like (subject scoring): header TEST_SUBJECT Subject =~ /test/i (I've tried several combinations of fields: preferen

Spamassassin rules from sql

Hi! I'm just wondering, is there a limitation on the type of rules that can be added to the SpamassAssin rules table? Because adding something like (subject scoring): header TEST_SUBJECT Subject =~ /test/i (I've tried several combinations of fields: preference & value, w

Re: New DNS white/blacklist + spamassassin rules Re: Please report IPs delivering ham and spam with this script

On 04/01, Mark Martinec wrote: > > eval:check_rbl_sub('iprep-firsttrusted', '127.\d+.\d+.100') describe > > Do not forget to backslash-quote dots in a regular expression > if you mean a literal dot instead of 'any character'. Updated rules (thanks again): ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DN

Re: New DNS white/blacklist + spamassassin rules Re: Please report IPs delivering ham and spam with this script

> > Do not forget to backslash-quote dots in a regular expression > > if you mean a literal dot instead of 'any character'. > > Eep. That was copied from existing rules. I believe you're right, and > there are a bunch of rules that need more escaping. Thanks. True, there is a bunch of rules th

Re: New DNS white/blacklist + spamassassin rules Re: Please report IPs delivering ham and spam with this script

On 04/01, Michael Scheidell wrote: > On 4/1/11 2:34 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > >header RCVD_IN_IPREPDNS_0 eval:check_rbl_sub('iprep-firsttrusted', > >'127.\d+.\d+.0') > >describe RCVD_IN_IPREPDNS_0 Sender listed > >athttp://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/, 0% ham > >tflags

Re: New DNS white/blacklist + spamassassin rules Re: Please report IPs delivering ham and spam with this script

On 04/01, Mark Martinec wrote: > > eval:check_rbl_sub('iprep-firsttrusted', '127.\d+.\d+.100') describe > > Do not forget to backslash-quote dots in a regular expression > if you mean a literal dot instead of 'any character'. Eep. That was copied from existing rules. I believe you're right, and

Re: New DNS white/blacklist + spamassassin rules Re: Please report IPs delivering ham and spam with this script

On 4/1/11 2:34 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: header RCVD_IN_IPREPDNS_0 eval:check_rbl_sub('iprep-firsttrusted', '127.\d+.\d+.0') describe RCVD_IN_IPREPDNS_0 Sender listed athttp://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/, 0% ham tflags RCVD_IN_IPREPDNS_0 net might actually n

Re: New DNS white/blacklist + spamassassin rules Re: Please report IPs delivering ham and spam with this script

> eval:check_rbl_sub('iprep-firsttrusted', '127.\d+.\d+.100') describe Do not forget to backslash-quote dots in a regular expression if you mean a literal dot instead of 'any character'. Mark

New DNS white/blacklist + spamassassin rules Re: Please report IPs delivering ham and spam with this script

While I still plan for this to primarily be used via rsync and a spamassassin plugin, I've loaded the data into DNS records and created spamassassin rules so it can easily be tested now. It's updating automatically once a day. I'm hoping this will encourage people to contribute

RE: Writing spamassassin rules

Evan Platt wrote: > At 12:46 PM 8/27/2009, you wrote: >> I'm sure I'm missing the obvious, but I can't seem to find a guide to >> writing spamassassin rules on the spamassassin web page. I'd like to >> write some custom rules, and some documentation would

Re: Writing spamassassin rules

Kevin Miller wrote: I'm sure I'm missing the obvious, but I can't seem to find a guide to writing spamassassin rules on the spamassassin web page. I'd like to write some custom rules, and some documentation would be really handy. Anybody got that URL handy? ht

Re: Writing spamassassin rules

At 12:46 PM 8/27/2009, you wrote: I'm sure I'm missing the obvious, but I can't seem to find a guide to writing spamassassin rules on the spamassassin web page. I'd like to write some custom rules, and some documentation would be really handy. Anybody got that URL handy?

Writing spamassassin rules

I'm sure I'm missing the obvious, but I can't seem to find a guide to writing spamassassin rules on the spamassassin web page. I'd like to write some custom rules, and some documentation would be really handy. Anybody got that URL handy? Thanks much... ...K

Re: Spamassassin rules in a mysql database

Martin Gregorie a écrit : >> put any custom rules in the database, and modify the spamd? start >> scripts to write the custom rules to flat files. modify your update >> program to signal a spamd reload every time you modify the rules, or, >> use unison. we use unison (not for our VPS spam cluster

Re: Spamassassin rules in a mysql database

Patrick Saweikis wrote: Has anyone had any experience trying to make spamassassin use a mysql database for it’s ruleset instead of text files? We are planning on making our anti-spam solution redundant, and it would be nice to have this in a database instead of copying files around when we ma

Re: Spamassassin rules in a mysql database

> put any custom rules in the database, and modify the spamd? start > scripts to write the custom rules to flat files. modify your update > program to signal a spamd reload every time you modify the rules, or, > use unison. we use unison (not for our VPS spam clusters) but for > syncing flat file

Re: Spamassassin rules in a mysql database

Patrick Saweikis wrote: Has anyone had any experience trying to make spamassassin use a mysql database for it's ruleset instead of text files? We are planning on making our anti-spam solution redundant, and it would be nice to have this in a database instead of copying files around when we

Spamassassin rules in a mysql database

Has anyone had any experience trying to make spamassassin use a mysql database for it's ruleset instead of text files? We are planning on making our anti-spam solution redundant, and it would be nice to have this in a database instead of copying files around when we make changes.

Re: spamassassin rules

On 12.08.08 14:57, Jimmy Stewpot wrote: > I currently use the SARE rules database for my incoming spam detection > and prevention. Over recent months I have begun to see a big increase in > the number of spams. I am interested to know if there are any > alternatives to SARE for an external list

spamassassin rules

Hello, I currently use the SARE rules database for my incoming spam detection and prevention. Over recent months I have begun to see a big increase in the number of spams. I am interested to know if there are any alternatives to SARE for an external list of rules? Regards, Jimmy

Re: spamassassin rules bypassed

n use rawbody, which will match HTML tags > and body text. > > Of course you are right, thank you very much. I used bodyraw and everything went well, they are now filtered. Sorry for the n00bie question. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-rules-bypasse

Re: spamassassin rules bypassed

natoma wrote: Good morning to everyone in the forum. I have been following with interest this forum and now I have a question. I tried looking for answers but I found nothing. I have this problem. I run a small mail-server and I use spamassassin to filter the 98.2% spam that I usually receive. Si

spamassassin rules bypassed

hat's happening, neither I am able to think to a workaround and these messages keep coming. Thanks again for any suggestion. Luca -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-rules-bypassed-tp18397700p18397700.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

RE: mcafee-spamassassin-rules

Title: RE: mcafee-spamassassin-rules > -Original Message- > From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:36 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: mcafee-spamassassin-rules > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at

Re: mcafee-spamassassin-rules

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:38:32PM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: > > It's also worth noting that hypothetically, if I was a > > company releasing > > updates based on an open-source product, I may have incentive to avoid > > making those updates useful on said product, otherwise people would > > do

RE: mcafee-spamassassin-rules

Title: RE: mcafee-spamassassin-rules > It's also worth noting that hypothetically, if I was a > company releasing > updates based on an open-source product, I may have incentive to avoid > making those updates useful on said product, otherwise people would > download my

Re: mcafee-spamassassin-rules

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:25:53PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote: > just as well try and use those rules. However, they were written for > version 2.6 and 3.0.3-2sarge1 is complaining about those rules. My recollection is that they're using a pre-3.0 version of SA, with (I'd imagine) a number of modi

mcafee-spamassassin-rules

We are using Mcafee's anti-virus product on our mailservers and we mirror their files from ftp.nai.com on an hourly basis. Today I saw something that I did not realise they provide: mcafee-spamassassin-perl-1.0.2620-1.5002.i386.rpm mcafee-spamassassin-rules-1.0.2620-2620.5002.i386.rpm I th

  1   2   >