All,
I recently upgraded a RedHat 8 mail server to RedHat Enterprise
Linux 3. Rather than do an in-place upgrade, I chose to do a complete
backup of the RH8 server, format and install a fresh RHEL3. After doing
so, I replaced all the necessary config including my centralized bayes
database f
Well... So far, barring rewriting the script - which I don't believe I even
have all the source for from ChristoferLewis.com - I believe I have found a
munged solution...
I added another ip address to the exchange server, created another virtual
SMTP server in exchange, told the canoncopier to us
Dear all,
I am installing spamassassin 3.0.1 on server that
running qmail, but after i install spamassassin i still receive spam, when i
using older version of spamassassin (2.6.3) i don't have problem with spam (90%
of spam are blocked).
Can anybody help me.. i already try to run
co
> We upgraded from 2.64 to 3.0.2 and now all of a sudden we are getting
> mails with blank lines in the headers, eg
Certainly doesn't happen normally.
The last time someone reported this happening it turned out to be a broken
version of the integration tool they were using, as best I recall. I th
You appear to be running some rather old versions of some SARE (and other)
rule sets. It also looks like you have incomplete SARE rulesets, probably
something like having a -1 file without the corresponding (and required) -0
file.
All of those warnings were fixed in the SARE rules that are valid
Hello Steve, Matt,
Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 10:27:32 AM, you wrote:
MK> At 12:26 PM 1/5/2005, Steve Bondy wrote:
>>Is it safe to write a rule that triggers on the content of the Message
>>ID header?
MK> Yes...
Agreed.
>>I frequently see things coming in which have message IDs that
>>include
Hello Listers,
Can anyone help me with my problem. I do not want SA to set the
X-Spam-Report: tag in the mail header or mailbody, but I can't find the
option how to set this.
Any help would be welcome.
I'm using SA 3.0.1 and below are my settings.
rewrite_subject 0
use_terse_report 1
report_safe
Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Per Jessen wrote:
>> > Show of hands,
>> > who's still on 2.64 with no exact plans to upgrade?
Alright, so far I've seen 4-5, maybe 6 people saying they intend to stick to
2.64 for the foreseeable future. Is that really all?
I'm quite willing myself to put an effort in in
Hi Alex,
if understand everything you wrote you want to load awl from the
filesystem and the userprefs via sql, right? do you have any error
messages from your logfiles available for a closer look?
Hmm, I think midnight is no good time for doing such setups - I had a
typo in the mysql-config of
On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 9:06:37 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> Chris Santerre wrote:
>> Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
>> a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
>> spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I hav
Hello all,
I'm currently evaluating CRM114 and DSPAM and want to know how they
could improve the SpamAssassin filtering.
I already found Eugene's (Morozov) messages on this list (March-Mai
2004) but I would like to know if there are some new answers beside
the one given in http://mail-archives.ap
Has anyone come up with a script or method that would allow users to
forward their false positive and false negative emails back to an address
on the mailserver where they can be used to train the Bayes database. I
understand that Bayes needs the email in its original format so the script
has t
Neat! I was just thinking about how to do that myself.
But, I use exchange, so I'm not sure how to do it yet.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Koch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:42 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Bayes FP/FN Training P
I have a script that I use with Exchange/Outlook for Bayes training, but it's
not simple. You can't just forward a message back to the SA box, since Outlook
deletes most of the original headers. You have to "cut-n-paste" the whole
email into a new email and send THAT to the SA box. There the
I was wondering if there is any work in SA 3.0+ to track/report the
seconds of each part of scanning a message.. If I have a spike from 4.0
seconds to say 15 overall it's hard to track down why.
Secondly is there any way to tell the master SA process to re-read
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf a
Ryan Pavely wrote:
Secondly is there any way to tell the master SA process to re-read
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf as to enable/disable a feature without
killing off and restarting all processes.
Sending a HANGUP signal ('killall -HUP spamd' for Linux) will cause the
spamd daemon to reload it
If you have an imap server. what I have done is that I have setup two publice
folders and then I use a script that I found on the
internet to read and rebuild the bayes. The users copy the spam message in a
SPAM folder and the ham into a NOT SPAM folder this
keeps the message in tact. I subscrib
Hi,
I have three (basically) identical servers running spamassassin, each
with their own Bayesian database. All three have equal MX values, so
each receive the sameish proportions of ham/spam.
Is there a way of, say daily, merging the databases together? I have not
seen any documentation on this.
> -Original Message-
> From: Carinus Carelse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:27 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bayes FP/FN Training Procedures
>
>
> If you have an imap server. what I have done is that I have
> setup two publice fol
> Alright, so far I've seen 4-5, maybe 6 people saying they
> intend to stick to
> 2.64 for the foreseeable future. Is that really all?
> I'm quite willing myself to put an effort in in maintaining
> 2.64, and I'll
> probably be doing it on a personal level anyway, but to work
> to produce act
On 01/06/05 08:41 AM, Jeff Koch sat at the `puter and typed:
>
> Has anyone come up with a script or method that would allow users to
> forward their false positive and false negative emails back to an address
> on the mailserver where they can be used to train the Bayes database. I
> understan
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:44:43PM +, Matthew Newton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have three (basically) identical servers running spamassassin, each
> with their own Bayesian database. All three have equal MX values, so
> each receive the sameish proportions of ham/spam.
>
> Is there a way of, say dai
On Thu, January 6, 2005 9:13 am, Louis LeBlanc said:
> On 01/06/05 08:41 AM, Jeff Koch sat at the `puter and typed:
>>
>> Has anyone come up with a script or method that would allow users to
>> forward their false positive and false negative emails back to an
>> address
>> on the mailserver where
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 9:06:37 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA.
Hello people,
In the SQL-docs it's said that one can use the email-address to where
the mail is delivered as "username". But I seem unable to make it work
that way. Nowhere on the site can I find any reference on how to do
this, but it could be that I don't search good enough (I'm sorry, but
the w
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:15:36AM -0600, Michael Parker wrote:
> > I have three (basically) identical servers running spamassassin, each
> > with their own Bayesian database. All three have equal MX values, so
> > each receive the sameish proportions of ham/spam.
> >
> > Is there a way of
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 00:54, Per Jessen wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Per Jessen wrote:
> >> > Show of hands,
> >> > who's still on 2.64 with no exact plans to upgrade?
>
> Alright, so far I've seen 4-5, maybe 6 people saying they intend to stick to
> 2.64 for the foreseeable future. Is th
and me..no had time to upgrade thus far and 2.64 does a very nice job..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 00:54, Per Jessen wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Show of hands,
who's still on 2.64 w
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:33:19PM +0100, Tim Stoop wrote:
>
> In the SQL-docs it's said that one can use the email-address to where
> the mail is delivered as "username". But I seem unable to make it work
> that way. Nowhere on the site can I find any reference on how to do
> this, but it could b
I'm sticking with 2.6 for now too, because I can't just upgrade to Perl
5.8 because FreeBSD 4.10 doesn't have Perl 5.8 in the base system, and
my system is too fragile to just upgrade Perl without days worth of
headaches. :\
Tim Gustafson
MEI Technology Consulting, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(516) 379
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 03:33:31PM +, Matthew Newton wrote:
>
> I suppose my other options then, if it is worth it, is to just rely on
> the database from one machine and copy to the other two machines once a
> day/month/(choose favourite time period here). Or maybe the three
> machines can se
On Thursday, January 6, 2005, 7:25:32 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> Of 284673 messages processed, 217538 were spam, 175941 hit at least one
> SURBL rule. So give me 80%. Best single anti-spam tool I've seen yet.
Thanks! :-) 80% sounds about right.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
htt
We have a half dozen or so customers where we have installed 2.6x and run it
for all our inhouse e-mail. Does a wonderful job with a minumum amount of care
and feeding, just move missed spam into a special folder for nightly bayesian
retraining and we're catching over 95% of SPAM.
Our goal is
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL
> hitting. In a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater
> hitting SURBL for all spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have
> a feeling if I clean up
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:26:22AM -0600, Steve Bondy wrote:
> Is it safe to write a rule that triggers on the content of the Message
> ID header?
The 70_sare_header.cf found here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_header.cf
has a number of message ID rules that work pretty well. A
2.3 DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours after Received: date
Just got a FP on this, the 2.3 for DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 pushing the score over
the limit.
Does anybody know how common future dates are with spam? I don't seem to get that many.
A score of 2.3 seems a bit severe just for havi
If you're using Exchange/Outlook, just use a public folder. Give the
users write-only access and let them drag and drop it in. Works great.
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 08:44 -0500, Jason Gauthier wrote:
> Neat! I was just thinking about how to do that myself.
> But, I use exchange, so I'm not sure how
Please add a rule for the JP SURBL list. It catches as much spam
as WS or OB:
http://www.surbl.org/quickstart.html
jp - jwSpamSpy + Prolocation data source
Joe Wein's jwSpamSpy program is used both by Joe's own systems and also Raymond
Dijkxhoorn and his colleagues at Prolocation to process
Does anyone know if any of the SARE rules are causing timeouts? My server
was bogging down really bad. I removed the custom rules and that seems to
have fixed it. Only thing is, I don't know which one is causing the problem.
Here is what I have:
SARE_ADULT
SARE BIZ/Marketing/Learning Ruleset
SA
We're currently using spamassassin with sendmail kicking it off via
users local procmailrc for those that choose to use it. I'm thinking
of having sendmail run SA for everyone but wish to retain backwards
compatability. Specifically, users that have done bayes tuning and
set up there own user_pr
Keith Whyte wrote:
> 2.3 DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours after Received:
> date
>
> Just got a FP on this, the 2.3 for DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24
> pushing the score over the limit.
>
> Does anybody know how common future dates are with spam? I don't seem
> to get that many. A score of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gustafson, Tim writes:
> I'm sticking with 2.6 for now too, because I can't just upgrade to Perl
> 5.8 because FreeBSD 4.10 doesn't have Perl 5.8 in the base system, and
> my system is too fragile to just upgrade Perl without days worth of
> heada
Although we have upgraded on most of our systems I am not too enthused with
the idea of touching our main gateway. It works, so I don't want to break
it.
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd
Hosting, co-location & domains
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. +353 59 9137101
http:
The usual solution is more memory.
You need to tell us what version of SpamAssassin you are running, how
much memory you have in the machine, and how you are using SpamAssassin
including the options. Your mail load will also make a difference.
The SARE rules do consume a lot of memory. But they do
Are you saying that using spamd/c gives you problems for users who have
their own local rules? Just curious as to what problem?
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 1:19 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SAR
I am using SA 3.0.2, CGPSA 1.4, CommunigatePro, Mac OS X
When the custom rules are present, process times are ranging from 12-45
seconds per message. This is causing a bottleneck.
It looks like it may be a DNS lookup issue, but I can't be sure.
on 1/6/05 2:06 PM, Chris Santerre at [EMAIL PROT
>-Original Message-
>From: Felix Schwarz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:16 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Plugins modifying a message
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>I'm currently evaluating CRM114 and DSPAM and want to know how they
>could improve the S
Loren Wilton wrote:
> > We upgraded from 2.64 to 3.0.2 and now all of a sudden we are getting
> > mails with blank lines in the headers, eg
> Certainly doesn't happen normally.
> The last time someone reported this happening it turned out to be a
> broken version of the integration tool they were
Why not set up a common Bayes DB for all three servers? This solves the
merging problem by doing the updates against a merged DB.
Loren
> Does anyone know if any of the SARE rules are causing timeouts? My server
> was bogging down really bad. I removed the custom rules and that seems to
> have fixed it. Only thing is, I don't know which one is causing the
problem.
In general timeouts tend to get caused by net tests. I can't recal
Keith Whyte wrote:
> Just got a FP on this, the 2.3 for DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 pushing the
> score over the limit.
What are the rest of the matching rules, with scores?
The time zone setting is likely the culprit. More and more people are using
NTP, though, so the FP's should go down over time.
> When the custom rules are present, process times are ranging from 12-45
> seconds per message. This is causing a bottleneck.
>
> It looks like it may be a DNS lookup issue, but I can't be sure.
Ah. If this is a general thing where all messages slow down, then I have to
agree - you probably need
On Monday 03 January 2005 01:09 pm, Andy Jezierski wrote:
> Probably not. Every year around the holidays our spam hits a yearly low
> usually the week of Christmas, then goes right back up to the previous
> levels. I think some of the spammers may be taking a holiday break as
> well.
>
> Andy
Per
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are you saying that using spamd/c gives you problems for users who have
> their own local rules? Just curious as to what problem?
>
> --Chris
I have not migrated Loren over to the new machine because there is a
problem HERE with spamd. I set it down
That is very likely if you have not told it a valid DNS server for
use with the DNS tests.
Can you fire up a local caching only name server?
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "MIKE YRABEDRA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am using SA 3.0.2, CGPSA 1.4, CommunigatePro, Mac OS X
>
> When the custo
55 matches
Mail list logo
