yep!
2009/4/13 Karsten Bräckelmann :
> On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 01:43 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Thanks Jason - looks like these are back in business now :)
>
> They are indeed... :)
>
>> This rule made me chuckle though, not sure how many hits I'll get on it:
>>
>> body __SEEK_JRZRF8 /Dear jmas...
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 22:08 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 13:29 -0500, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> > X-Spam-Report:
> > * 3.0 KB_RATWARE_MSGID Ratware Message-Id
>
> Ah, nice... :) Thanks.
>
> > The only custom rule that it hit was:
> Actually, my RATWARE_MSGID rul
hello all
I recently updated spamassassin form 3.1 to 3.2.5 since then, I've been
hammered by spam. I found out later that sa-update is not updating the
rules:
###
.
.
.
.
34, skipping channel
[16467] dbg: channel: attempting channel
70_sare_genlsubj2.cf.sare.sa-update.tech.net
[16467
realshock wrote:
> hello all
> I recently updated spamassassin form 3.1 to 3.2.5 since then, I've
> been hammered by spam. I found out later that sa-update is not
> updating the rules:
log samples removed...
> Any clue on how to fix this?
> I'd appreciate any help
What user do you run sa-updat
Ned Slider a écrit :
> Justin Mason wrote:
>> oops. I need to classify more spam/ham :(
>>
>> --j.
>>
>
> Thanks Jason
Jason? is that a contraction of Justin and mASON? :)
>[snip]
Karsten Bräckelmann a écrit :
> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 23:20 -0400, BChasm wrote:
>> I guess the spammer figures it only takes one click...and there are
>> neurotic people out there desperate to believe that a computerized
>> stranger loves them (as long as they click).
>
> Sure. Did I miss an emot
I'm running sa-update as root:
##
[r...@mailgw spamassassin]# ls -al
total 40
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Apr 13 10:58 .
drwxr-xr-x 30 root root 4096 Nov 15 15:46 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9067 Apr 8 18:53 20_dnsbl_test.cf
drwxr-xr-x 35 root root 4096 Apr 11 04:02 3.001008
drwxrw-rw- 34 ro
I'm running sa-update as root:
##
[r...@mailgw spamassassin]# ls -al
total 40
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Apr 13 10:58 .
drwxr-xr-x 30 root root 4096 Nov 15 15:46 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9067 Apr 8 18:53 20_dnsbl_test.cf
drwxr-xr-x 35 root root 4096 Apr 11 04:02 3.001008
drwxrw-rw- 34 ro
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, realshock wrote:
drwxrw-rw- 34 root root 4096 Apr 13 10:59 3.002005
Those permissions look wrong.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F
mouss wrote:
Ned Slider a écrit :
Justin Mason wrote:
oops. I need to classify more spam/ham :(
--j.
Thanks Jason
Jason? is that a contraction of Justin and mASON? :)
[snip]
Oops - My apologies to Justin :)
> > > Thanks Jason
>
> Oops - My apologies to Justin :)
So you didn't get the Nider? ;-)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Arthur Kerpician wrote on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:25:42 +0300:
> . So from time to time I should
> feed ham manually to sa-learn, until it reaches the spam level again. Is
> this correct? If it is, I think it's rather time-consuming to always
> check the trained ham/spam and level them.
There is n
John Rudd wrote on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:58:04 -0700:
> For the Denied feature, I have to enter them one by one (new line or
> comma separated), or in ranges like I gave above. I don't think it
> accepts CIDR blocks. Thus, the reason I want the type of list I gave.
I really cannot see a reason to
13 matches
Mail list logo
