Hello Matías,
Friday, February 11, 2005, 1:35:19 PM, you wrote:
>> It's also hitting BAYES_99, which means your global Bayes database
>> (since you're running as root) thinks for sure this is NOT spam.
>> You've got a problem with the emails you've been learning in the past.
MLB> This are bad ne
Thanks. The issue resolved itself in about 30 minutes. I assume
something was just fubar on their end.
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 03:50 PM 2/11/2005, ChupaCabra wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host
mail.americanadvisor.net[199.231.136.136]
said: 501 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender refused by t
Hello I had a problem trying to install the
SpamAssasain but I cant create the make file ... I get this
[root Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2]# perl
Makefile.PLCan't locate warnings.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
/usr/lib/perl5/5.00503/i386-linux /usr/lib/perl5/5.00503
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/i
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 08:00:06PM -0600, Juan Carlos Lopez B wrote:
> [root Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2]# perl Makefile.PL
> Can't locate warnings.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
> /usr/lib/perl5/5.00503/i386-linux /usr/lib/perl5/5.00503
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/i386-linux /usr/lib/perl5/site_per
Hi all,
I'm very puzzled by the attached spam that appeared in my inbox
last night. I'm running Slackware 9.1, with SpamAssassin-3.0.0,
sendmail-8.12.10, and procmail-3.15.2. I run spamassassin (not
spamd), and invoke it from procmail. I use pine4.58 as my client.
This all runs on a PIII box w
At 10:01 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
When the spam in question arrived, several rules did not appear to
fire; specifically the two RBLs RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and
RCVD_IN_XBL, as well as URIBL_OB_SURBL.
Well, The URIBL and Spamcop changes are almost certainly due to time
difference. Those
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 10:01 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> >When the spam in question arrived, several rules did not appear to
> >fire; specifically the two RBLs RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and
> >RCVD_IN_XBL, as well as URIBL_OB_SURBL.
>
> Well, The URIBL and Spamcop c
At 11:13 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> The XBL however, has the "notfirsthop" restriction. It won't match
> any messages that have no trusted relays. Based on the debug
> output, there were no trusted relays, thus XBL would not have
> matched for this reason.
I think I follow this for why i
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:13 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> > > The XBL however, has the "notfirsthop" restriction. It won't match
> > > any messages that have no trusted relays. Based on the debug
> > > output, there were no trusted relays, thus XBL would not have
Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated.
Information concerning these rules files can be found at
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#header
Bob Menschel
Hallo und guten Abend Robert,
danke für die Email vom 12.02.2005 um 23:26
Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote:
> Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated.
> Information concerning these rules files can be found at
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#header
is this on
Hello Jim,
Saturday, February 12, 2005, 2:57:06 PM, you wrote:
JK> danke für die Email vom 12.02.2005 um 23:26
JK> Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote:
>> Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated.
>> Information concerning these rules files can be found at
>> http://www.ru
12 matches
Mail list logo
