Hi guys,
This is my first email to this mailing list. I've been trying to
update spamassassin from spamassassin-3.1.8-1.i386 to
spamassassin-3.2.4-1.i386 for my mail server since 3 days ago. The
operating system is RHEL 4. When I run the rpm command:
rpm -Uvh --force perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-
Hello Daryl,
Thanks for your reply.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 02:23:13PM -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 05/03/2008 5:44 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:44:02PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> >> On a new mailserver with 8Gb ram and 2xdual-core CPU's we get regular
> >> me
On 10/03/2008 4:46 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> Hello Daryl,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 02:23:13PM -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>> On 05/03/2008 5:44 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:44:02PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
On a new mailserver wit
We use a single global Bayes DB. On that DB, we have months of learning
tokens. Even creating a new one does not help. This is an odd problem!
Justin Mason wrote:
aha -- that's being added by SpamAssassin alright, then, due to
the add_header line.
Are you using 1 global Bayes db, or per-use
Thanks. We use a single site wide DB. After playing with lots of things, I
noticed that the bayes journal file was being constantly consumed by
'something'. It would get created, get to 2K and gone. I think it's some
sort of stupid 'windows' trick. Even after creating new DB files, the same
th
On 09.03.08 14:15, Theodore Heise wrote:
> Occasionally I get unsolicited bulk e-mail on a topic that is of
> borderline interest to me. My tendency is to deleted it from my
> spam folder before training the Bayes functions on my spam. I've
> considered training Bayes on these messages as ham,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:24AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Try to roughly compare the actual amount of CPU time that the spamd
> children are using on each server. 3.2 will use more resources than
How do I do that? Just watching 'top' is not a reliable method I
suspect.
> Are the tim
On 09.03.08 23:12, Luke Sheldrick wrote:
> I've impleneted sa over the weekend on my personal / dev mx. I am using
> the following versions on fedora 9.
please,. configure your MUA to wrap lines below 90 characters per line.
Thank you.
> spamassassin.i3863.2.4-1.fc8
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:30 +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> This is my first email to this mailing list. I've been trying to
> update spamassassin from spamassassin-3.1.8-1.i386 to
> spamassassin-3.2.4-1.i386 for my mail server since 3 days ago. The
> operating system is RHEL 4. When
> > >etc. I have in my sendmail virtusertable:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] nobody
> > The above is incorrect as there is still a processing overhead. I
> > suggest using:
> >
> > @example.com error:nouser User unknown
On 09.03.08 15:05, Tuc at T-B
Well, I do get the description of those perl module. To reinstall
spamassassin from the source, frankly, would be the last option since
the mail server is a productive one. I'm trying to make the
installation as simple as possible with the rpm file so I'll only have
to invoke the "rpm -Uvh" command
uk1host wrote:
>
>
> I have put alot of RBL's on my server to cut out spam, but the local ISP
> use's Messagelabs.com to direct mail through.
>
> Is there any RBLs' which block this ?
>
> RBL's I have are : DNSBL, DNSBL.NJABL, DNSBL-1, DSBL, HOSTKARMA, PSBL,
> SpamCop, SURBL, URIBL, ZEN
>
>
Fixed this by upgrading SA to 3.2.4
Hello!
Installed SA 3.2.4 on solaris 10 x86 box.
compiled dcc 1.3.83 with --homedir=/var/dcc --bindir=/var/dcc
and installed into /var/dcc
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf have following directives:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC
use_dcc 1
dcc_home /var/dcc
dcc_path /var/dcc/bin/dcc
Hello,
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:43 -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5652
[...]
> So in the interim could I suggest an FAQ that acknowledges the problem and
> gives
> some sort of workaround/fudge, even if that is as simple (even if suboptimal
On 3/10/2008 2:22 PM, Olivier Mueller wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:43 -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5652
[...]
So in the interim could I suggest an FAQ that acknowledges the problem and gives
some sort of workaround/fudge, even
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
But it still remains, I'm looking to find what people think is
the best way on an MX host to do the rejecting at SMTP time.
I'm coming to this conversation kind of late, so I apologize if I've
missed something important earlier in the threa
Thanks for your feedback dear Ninja :)
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:55 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> > So if I understand correctly (spent an hour browsing archives & faqs), I
> > could simply truncate the bayes_seen table every week or so, or add a
> > timestamp field and remove entries older tha
SM wrote:
At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
reduce the amount of
On 3/10/2008 3:41 PM, Olivier Mueller wrote:
Thanks for your feedback dear Ninja :)
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:55 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
So if I understand correctly (spent an hour browsing archives & faqs), I
could simply truncate the bayes_seen table every week or so, or add a
timestam
Hello,
I've searched a lot to find a proper solution for my problem, but I
didn't find exaclty what I was searching for.
I'm running spamassassin 3.2.4 on suse 10.1 together with sendmail
8.13.8 and clamav 0.92.
Severeal times a day messages pass spamassassin without being correctly
scanne
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
There are "considerations" in doing this. Right now,
all my systems are set up running sendmail, and all with the
config of :
define(`confCOPY_ERRORS_TO',`Postmaster')
As such, true to its name, anytime there is an error, the
postmaster gets a c
FC Mario Patty wrote:
rpm -Uvh --force perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.4-1.i386.rpm
spamassassin-3.2.4-1.i386.rpm
[snip]
cpan> i HTML::Parser
Try "rpm -q perl-HTML-Parser" or "rpm -q 'perl(HTML::Parser)'". You'll
either get nothing, or a version number less than SA requires. When
install
Seriously...
How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
change and that he isn't losing any email if you do not do a
Hi,
I searched on the mailing archive but didn't find what I want.
I'm using a firewall (Juniper Netscreen) for antispam and I want to use it
with SpamAssassin for a best performance.
The Netscreen antispam will do the test in first and after SA.
Is it possible to tell SA not to check a mail if
Gauthier DOUCHET wrote:
Is it possible to tell SA not to check a mail if the header already
contains the string **SPAM** or another one?
The usual method to not have SA scan a message is to not pass it to SA
in the first place. Exactly how you do this depends on how you're
calling SA - most
At 08:43 10-03-2008, Sebastian Hoffmann wrote:
I'm running spamassassin 3.2.4 on suse 10.1 together with sendmail
8.13.8 and clamav 0.92.
Severeal times a day messages pass spamassassin without being
correctly scanned / redirected. The logfile throws entries like these:
[snip]
Mar 7 18:33:0
Hi,
Our spamassassin is taking around 30 seconds per message, way too long. I'm
trying to find out how to enable some timing logging so I can see exactley what
tests are taking the time. I read about 'timelog_path'm, which seems to be
exactley what I was looking for, however, it's been remov
Paul J. Smith wrote:
> Our spamassassin is taking around 30 seconds per message, way too
> long. I'm trying to find out how to enable some timing logging so I
> can see exactley what tests are taking the time. I read about
> 'timelog_path'm, which seems to be exactley what I was looking for,
> h
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Gauthier DOUCHET wrote:
Is it possible to tell SA not to check a mail if the header already
contains the string **SPAM** or another one?
Be very careful in choosing what you inspect to decide whether or not to
scan. Make sure you pick something that a spammer isn't likely
>
> Seriously...
>
> How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
> for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
>
> Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
> change and that he isn't losing any email i
On 10/03/2008 6:36 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:24AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>> Try to roughly compare the actual amount of CPU time that the spamd
>> children are using on each server. 3.2 will use more resources than
>
> How do I do that? Just watching 'top'
Theodore Heise schrieb am 09.03.2008 19:15:
Occasionally I get unsolicited bulk e-mail on a topic that is of
borderline interest to me. My tendency is to deleted it from my spam
folder before training the Bayes functions on my spam. I've considered
training Bayes on these messages as ham, bu
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> Everyone keeps telling me to push the userlist out to the
> MX. This isn't possible, since everything is handled in virtusertable.
> So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
You are begining to understand why MX relays are recommended agains
Theodore Heise schrieb am 09.03.2008 19:15:
Occasionally I get unsolicited bulk e-mail on a topic that is of
borderline interest to me. My tendency is to deleted it from my spam
folder before training the Bayes functions on my spam. I've
considered training Bayes on these messages as ham, b
At 11:47 10-03-2008, Bob Proulx wrote:
What would have been the downside of *not* having a backup MX? The
Loss of mail.
mail would have remained in the mailqueue. Comcast, AOL, Yahoo,
Gmail, corporate servers, private servers, etc. would have retried to
send the mail to you later. When you
Hi all,
A few months ago we had to restart our Bayes database, as it went
corrupt, according to SA at the time. This was during an SA upgrade, and
I believe it was a faulty install that caused this.
Our old database was running for years and is rather large ( I still
have copies ). The new one i
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Seriously...
How hard is it to setup the MX boxen to only allow 4 email addresses to pass
for that particular domain, rejecting all others in the SMTP conversation?
Unless the customer is dropping BIG DADDY $$$ with you, tell him policy
change and that he isn't losing
Alex Woick wrote:
The proper usage of the Bayes filter is very simple: feed spam as spam
and ham as ham. All of your mail. Don't care for content that might be
mis-learned in your eyes: it will not be mis-learned. Don't try be
smarter than the filter. The only exception is bounce-messages: don'
> -Original Message-
> From: SM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:49 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How to report 120,000 spams a day
>
> At 11:47 10-03-2008, Bob Proulx wrote:
> >What would have been the downside of *not* having a backup MX?
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Hi,
Everyone keeps telling me to push the userlist out to the
MX. This isn't possible, since everything is handled in virtusertable.
So then they tell me to push the virtusertable out to the MX's.
So I've asked multiple people multiple times how using sendmail
o
Hi all,
Another query.. another busy SA day.
I have a piece of Spam that is getting through to one of our biggest
clients. I have written rules to tag this Spam, but it is as if it isn't
even being checked by Spamassassin.
I have checked our qmail control files to ensure we are spamchecking the
James E. Pratt wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > >What would have been the downside of *not* having a backup MX? The
> >
> > Loss of mail.
>
> No. "Possible mail loss" is really the correct term. Just because I have
> no backup MX, it does not mean I will lose mail (Mail loss can, and
> usual
Hi,
I have the following problem: I run a server with Spamassassin and in front
of it I have another SPAM Filter that is allready prefiltering the incoming
emails. Now I want Spamassassin to put these prefiltered messages
automaticly into the users SPAM Folders, but to do so, it has to filter the
Sandy S wrote:
OK, I admit I haven't been following this thread closely so I may have
missed something and maybe my suggestion won't fit your needs. However,
we're accomplishing something like what you describe above using
Mimedefang. The Mimedefang milter includes a function called
md_check
At 02:35 PM 3/10/2008, lukaszsl wrote:
I have the following problem: I run a server with Spamassassin and in front
of it I have another SPAM Filter that is allready prefiltering the incoming
emails.
Ok.. So far so good..
Now I want Spamassassin to put these prefiltered messages
automaticly in
Michael Hutchinson wrote:
Hi all,
Another query.. another busy SA day.
I have a piece of Spam that is getting through to one of our biggest
clients. I have written rules to tag this Spam, but it is as if it isn't
even being checked by Spamassassin.
I have checked our qmail control files to ens
At 13:38 10-03-2008, James E. Pratt wrote:
No. "Possible mail loss" is really the correct term. Just because I have
no backup MX, it does not mean I will lose mail (Mail loss can, and
usually is caused by many more issues than just no backup/secondary MX).
Yes.
At 14:20 10-03-2008, Bob Pro
Hello Steve,
Saturday, March 8, 2008, 11:56:46 PM, you wrote:
> Now, I'm no expert on spam-bots, but it strikes me that the 'bots might want
> to remove failed addresses
> from their lists to make them more efficient. A 550 error returned at the
> protocol level will immediately
> notify the 'bo
This just squeaked past my SA:
{snip}
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:38:53 -0400
from: "greg martind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
subject: [SPAM] GOOD EMPLOYMENT OFFER
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Authenticated: #46068547
{snip}
The all-lowercase
At 03:42 PM 3/10/2008, John Hardin wrote:
This just squeaked past my SA:
{snip}
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:38:53 -0400
from: "greg martind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
subject: [SPAM] GOOD EMPLOYMENT OFFER
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Authentic
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, John Hardin wrote:
This just squeaked past my SA:
{snip}
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:38:53 -0400
from: "greg martind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
subject: [SPAM] GOOD EMPLOYMENT OFFER
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Authentica
On 3/10/2008 7:15 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
In any case, if someone can explain the mechanics
of having a sendmail MX that is not the final delivery server
do localized verification against something and then pass
it along to the final delivery server please let me know.
Its not that
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Macdougall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2008 11:01 a.m.
> To: Michael Hutchinson
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Spamassassin not checking a particular Email.
>
> Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Anot
On 10/03/2008 6:42 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> This just squeaked past my SA:
>
> {snip}
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:38:53 -0400
> from: "greg martind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> subject: [SPAM] GOOD EMPLOYMENT OFFER
> to: [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 at 18:00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Michael Hutchinson wrote:
Hi all,
Another query.. another busy SA day.
I have a piece of Spam that is getting through to one of our biggest
clients. I have written rules to tag this Spam, but it is as if it isn't
even being c
> -Original Message-
> From: D Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2008 12:23 p.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Spamassassin not checking a particular Email.
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 at 18:00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
>
> > Michael Hu
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 10/03/2008 6:42 PM, John Hardin wrote:
This just squeaked past my SA:
{snip}
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:38:53 -0400
from: "greg martind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
subject: [SPAM] GOOD EMPLO
On 10/03/2008 8:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/2008 6:42 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> This just squeaked past my SA:
>>>
>>> {snip}
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:38:53 -0400
>>> from: "greg martind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Message-ID:
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Hutchinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2008 1:09 p.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Spamassassin not checking a particular Email.
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 at 18:00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
confabulated:
> >
SN
Hi Kris,
Thank-you for the advice. I downloaded those 3 packages from
http://dag.wieers.com, rebuilt, and installed them for my distro. Now
I can upgrade my spamassassin-3.2.4-1. Many thanx to all of you guys.
GBU.
Regards,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Kris Deugau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
I have a MRTG graph of # of spam blocked in transit and it's been
consistently 52-56k a day for years!! I always notice a huge
decrease over the weekend and it picks up big-time during the week.
From 40k on the weekend to an average peak of 54k weekdays.
I wonder if this means that the majority
HI
i am facing a problem from sending mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
my yahoo account , i receive the mail but it automatically come to my spam
folder in my yahoo account, this happen to all email ID in the yahoo domain.
Is there a work around on the mail server ( exim ) ( Linux box ).Bellow
is
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 18:14 +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
> Well, I do get the description of those perl module. To reinstall
> spamassassin from the source, frankly, would be the last option since
> the mail server is a productive one. I'm trying to make the
> installation as simple as possible wi
64 matches
Mail list logo
