Re: New Spam Assassin user

Mike L wrote: I am a new user. I am running on Windows 2003. I have several domains on my servers. I only want one domain on my server to use spam assassin. Where and what do i need to do to only filter for 1 domain on my sever. Is this possible. I would also like to setup wrongmx on this

Re: FP's on BAD_ENC_HEADER in bounces from Microsoft SMTPSVC

On Thursday 15 June 2006 03:43, Alan Premselaar wrote: > Aside from the QP scatter, this subject doesn't look like it's properly > encoded. if memory serves, if the encoded subject needs to be broken > across multiple lines, each line needs to have its own encoding > start/end tags. > > so it shou

Was "One large image" now is "several small images"

It seems the spammers have gotten smart to the fact that we were filtering for one large image and no text... now what I am seeing is that the spammers are sending many small images inline with the e-mails!But, I have yet to see a way to filter against this. Any thoughts?

Re: Was "One large image" now is "several small images"

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Matt wrote: > It seems the spammers have gotten smart to the fact that we were > filtering for one large image and no text... now what I am seeing > is that the spammers are sending many small images inline with the > e-mails! But, I have yet to see a way to filter against th

Re: The Future of Email is SQL

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 11:50 -0700, Steve Thomas wrote: > > So - like I said - this is visionary stuff. Think SQL - think outside > > the box. > > It's not all that visionary. Microsoft's been working on WinFS - a SQL > based system for storing files - for years. It's supposed to have been > releas

content is being striped

I am currently using SA 3.1.3 with the following Net-qmail (LWQ) Simscan 1.2 Ripmine Clamav The problem currently is that all messages are being delvered striped of their "Subjects" and "Content" I am complealy stumped by this and all my google searches have come up empty. Any help would be gre

Block: Google servers still on RBLs?

Title: Block: Google servers still on RBLs? I know this has been discussed before, but is there a reason google is still on RBLs? Nz-out-0102.google.com 64.233.162.203 listed on bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 Chris Santerre SysAdmin and SARE/URIBL ninja http://www.uribl.com http://www.rulesempor

Re: Block: Google servers still on RBLs?

>... >I know this has been discussed before, but is there a reason google is still >on RBLs? > >Nz-out-0102.google.com >64.233.162.203 listed on bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 > >Chris Santerre >SysAdmin and SARE/URIBL ninja >http://www.uribl.com >http://www.rulesemporium.com >... Gmail 419s, AF

What is normal period for SA retraining ?

I'm wanting to know many times per year do SA admins have to retrain ? Our setup sends mail to SA client for a score, then depending on score stores a backup of the mail in spam/ham mail folders for later review in case a mistake is made. We train SA and it detects flawlessly at this beginnin

Re: What is normal period for SA retraining ?

On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:17:51PM -0700, Harris, Jason (DIS) wrote: > I'm wanting to know many times per year do SA admins have to retrain ? > > Our setup sends mail to SA client for a score, then depending on score > stores a backup of the mail in spam/ham mail folders for later review in > c

Re: What is normal period for SA retraining ?

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:17:51 -0700, "Harris, Jason \(DIS\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm wanting to know many times per year do SA admins have to retrain ? > >Our setup sends mail to SA client for a score, then depending on score >stores a backup of the mail in spam/ham mail folders for late

Re: What is normal period for SA retraining ?

Harris, Jason (DIS) wrote: I'm wanting to know many times per year do SA admins have to retrain ? In a well-maintained install, you should NEVER have to retrain unless you have a catastrophic failure that crashes your live system *and* your backups. Regular manual training of missed spam a

Re: Block: Google servers still on RBLs?

Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I know this has been discussed before, but is there a reason google is > still on RBLs? > > Nz-out-0102.google.com > 64.233.162.203 listed on bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=64.233.162.203 2006-06-15T21:00:00Z

Re: FP's on BAD_ENC_HEADER in bounces from Microsoft SMTPSVC

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nick Leverton wrote: [snip] > We don't have an M$ mail server (and I for one don't want one). We're a > Unix shop, as qmail and qpsmtpd in our own headers shows :) > > I'm quite prepared to believe this is a MS bug, it certainly looks like it.