this will reject legit mail as well.
I would prefer SA to do the check and score appropriately.
Rgds
Justin
And I said, "Yes, a pet rat. He's very clean and he hasn't got bubonic plague."
And the policeman said, "Well that's reassuring."
We have seen a few messages that were allowed to be sent "on be half of" a user
within our network. The external users domain was able to send through our
relay and sort of spoof the user. Any way to use spamassassin to prevent this
sort of this?
ok thank you. we do use that so I will post to the mimedefang list.
--
Justin Edmands
SAGE Dining Services, Inc.®
Technology Department
jus...@sagedining.com
(410) 339-3950 x38
From: "Kevin A. McGrail"
To: "Justin Edmands" , users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent
We have SA running via Mimedefang on our MTAs. We have Zimbra MDA to manage
our mailstores. We do not currently have the MDA run SA checks on mail. We
let everything be done by the MTA. Because of this, the inidivudal users
preferences to "mark as spam" does not help the individual user. They will
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 02:03, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
> joker_ft top-posted:
>
>> Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> >
>> > On søn 29 aug 2010 17:28:52 CEST, joker_ft wrote
>> >
>> >> Does anyone know some public corpus updates in 2010 ? or why the
>> >> spam assassin public c
btw, I think this is already possible using the shortcircuit plugin.
Just use rule priorities to run the non-net rules first, and
shortcircuit if they are sufficient.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 08:05, Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 02:23:00AM -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>> On 10/
guys, feel free to mail me samples (offlist) of sought FPs -- ideally,
as mboxes. it's easy enough to add them to the training process.
--j.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 22:54, mouss wrote:
> Le 20/08/2010 17:12, Jan P. Kessler a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we use spamassassin with the sought ruleset si
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 14:24, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 11/8/2010 6:04 PM, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
>> On 08/11/2010 12:06 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>>
>>> Fair enough - fortunately I've not seen any of those here so assumed
>>> a genuine facebook mail had maybe slipped through into the corpus by
>>>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:59, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 11:46 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> So a couple points:
>>
>> 1. Subscribing to lists opens up lots of grey areas including
>> the above.
>>
>> 2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
>> ham. Some more a
I'm relatively new to Postfix, SpamAssassin and what not, so this might be a
silly question. I'm on SpamAssassin 3.3.1 on Debian Linux with Postfix. I've
inherited this configuration from a previous administrator and am still trying
to understand it.
To summarize up front, the two issues I
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 22:51, Adam Katz wrote:
> RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL has 99% overlap with the SA3.3 set and 98% with the
> SA3.2 set. That leaves 0.6758% of spam uniquely hitting this DNSBL (1%
> of its 67.5822%). RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK has the same story, resulting in
> 0.5138% unique spam from its 1%
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:26, Mark Martinec wrote:
> On Wednesday May 18 2011 09:42:55 monolit wrote:
>> >> do you have any experience with usage of SQLITE database as storage for
>> >> Spamassassin? Spamassassin uses Berkeley DB, but I need to replace it.
>> >> I could not find any manual, guide
guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
-- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were being checked in there
was to make their accuracy visible in ruleqa. It's been months since
I've looked at that, so it's needless. I'll remove them from svn
asap.
--j.
2011/6/11
On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 6/12/2011 12:32 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2011 10:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
> -- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were
it could be that whoever was uploading the fraud corpora which the
ruleset builds from is no longer doing so. I'll take a look later
on...
--j.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Axb skrev den 2013-04-12 10:17:
>
>
>> all I'm seeing in that file is
>>
>> meta JM_SOUGHT_1
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:31 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> Justin, can you provide any enlightenment? If the base Sought dynamic
> ruleset is indeed dead, can the wiki page be updated?
>
hi folks --
I've been in contact with some of the dev team regarding handing over the
sought ru
I have been reading about spamassassins ability to be used with a
mysql cluster. I am familiar with XtraDB Cluster from Percona. It's
currently what we use and it's pretty easy to setup. I have 3
locations with 2 relays at each location. I am thinking to just make
each mail relay, into a Percona Xt
We are seeing a few emails that are about a 1MB and appear to have
only a few lines of text. Upon further investigation, the email is in
HTML with a HUGE commented out part.
links, text, crap, and other stuff
On the command line, I manually run the message through SA and it
shows it has
I caught wind from a post on ddos-protection.org that Spamhaus is getting
DDoS attacked again. We are getting timeouts to spamhaus servers
intermittently. One test scan will work properly with no timeouts, the next
will say "deadline shrunk", then "the calling callback/abort on key" and
spam will f
We have a few thousand vendors in our websites database that I would like
to add to a whitelist. I am thinking of creating a /etc/mail/spamassassin/
corewhitelist.cf from this database.
What are the limitations/ repercussions of using a sitewide whitelist? If I
have 2000 addresses in the whitelist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pierre Thomson writes:
> Looks like one of Apache's sending relays got listed on SpamHaus SBL/XBL last
> night:
>
> >Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Mail from 209.237.227.199 refused - see
> >http://www.spamhaus.org/
>
> # host 209.237.227.199
> 199.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barry Jaspan writes:
> I have recently upgraded my SpamAssassin-based product to use SA
> 3.0-rc2. Generally, I think 3.0 is excellent; congratulations to the
> developers. I have a few comments:
>
> - A bug was introduced between rc1 and rc2. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
btw,
perl Makefile.PL < /dev/null
will use the defaults for all questions, that may help...
but the patch would be welcome (as an attachment on a bugzilla entry)
if you do implement that.
- --j.
Bob Pierce writes:
> I'm setting up a kickstart
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Hunter writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:36:29AM -0400, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:24 AM
> > >To: SAT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> Which is NOT in SURBL!! (It will be today!) Because like Dr. Evil this is a
> pre-emptive Shhh! It is just a matter of time before this site is used in an
> email spam. I also see no difference between this blog spam and email
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Andersen writes:
> On Thursday 02 September 2004 03:43 pm, Steve Sobol wrote:
> > Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
> > > Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
> > > actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Apthorpe writes:
> Bad form to reply to one's own posts, I know, but I've just updated
> babycart so it takes metadata as well comments. Also, there's better
> debugging info, better docs, comments are now swaddled in RFC8222 format
> for easier d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Emenaker writes:
> Joe Flowers wrote:
>
> >> If your "spread" is good and it's just the threshold that needs
> >> adjusting, it would be trivial to make a rule that fires on every
> >> message and give > it a score equal to the desired differen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Flowers writes:
> > You make a valid point in that, if graphed separately, ham and spam
> should show up as two separate curves on a graph.
>
> > However, there *is* overlap,
>
> Yes, I expect overlap or SA would be perfect with no FPs or FNs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
> Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Has anyone written a plugin for SA3 that pings the higher-priority MX
> > peers for a domain and boosts the spam score if they're up?
>
> No, but by my quick test here it woul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:32:42PM -0600, Chris Blaise wrote:
> > The rules were ALL_TRUSTED,MISSING_DATE,USER_IN_BLACKLIST and I
> > think since "ALL_TRUSTED" is a negative value.
> >
> > Am I missing something abou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Hepworth writes:
> NM Public wrote:
>
> >
> > And then say something like: If you do not immediately know the answer
> > to all these questions, you should not be installing or administering
> > SpamAssassin (unless it is for educational pu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Hildebrandt writes:
> I'm using spamassassin from within amavisd-new. Loggin shows that
> amavis's SA-check is the most time-consuming step while processing an
> email (>>80% of the total time needed).
>
> How can I run spamassassin against some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raymond Dijkxhoorn writes:
> Hi!
>
> > Chris, Raymond ,
> >
> > I went thru a random few of these and they're were listed at Spamhaus.
> > Using spamhaus at SMTP level or SA doing RBL lookups would have caught and
> > stopped them... Spamcop probabl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin writes:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> If it's blacklisting based on resolved ip, it should probably be noted
> that there are a couple of caveats:
>
> 1) Spammers can set up multiple ip addresses to an A re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raymond Dijkxhoorn writes:
> >> 1) Spammers can set up multiple ip addresses to an A record. Whatever
> >> does the reporting should check all A records, from the top down. i.e.
> >> query each NS multiple times to make sure it's not being round-rob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Chan writes:
> On Friday, September 10, 2004, 7:27:06 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> > WOW! I think this would hit more FPs then listing the IP! Am I wrong there!
> > I would never list the name server, as they may be hosting for much more
> > then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 03:49 PM 9/13/2004, Al Sparks wrote:
> >I noticed that the Mailing list ARChives (MARC) doesn't have any posts
> >for September, for spamassassin-users.
> >
> >The apache web page does advertise that MARC is one of the archiv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy Jezierski writes:
> Andy Jezierski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/13/2004 10:13:01 AM:
>
> > I've got a question as to whether you think this is a milter error or a
> > spamd error. I'm thinking milter.
> >
> > I'm running milter-spamc 0.24 al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Calum Mackay writes:
> Calum Mackay wrote:
> > Is it just me that gets loads of files bayes_toks.expire* filling up
> > /var/spool/spamassassin/nobody ?
> >
> > I seem to get a 10MB file of this form in there for every single email -
> > for every
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Calum Mackay writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > any idea why that had that effect?
>
> yup, SA, running as the user who was getting mail, was unable to move
> the existing journal file out of the way, since it didn't own it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:05 PM
> >To: Jeff Chan
> >Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> >Subject: Re: St
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm pretty sure there's a bugzilla bug open about this... I can't find it
though. Could you open a bug at http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/
to request it?
- --j.
Brian Keifer writes:
> I'm using SpamAssassin 3.0 RC5 to tag messages according to pe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Parker writes:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 09:35:34AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure there's a bugzilla bug open about this... I can't find it
> > though. Could you open a bug at http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> You won't see anything on it yet. That was zero hour info I gave ;) Its in
> the pre-alpha stages.
>
> I'll have to check that Perl code. I know who the reviewers were. LOL. ;)
er, whoops ;)
- --j.
> --Chris
>
> >-Or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Brodbeck writes:
> Is there a way to get the SpamAssassin build process to use -O instead of -O2
> while building spamc? I run FreeBSD on a DEC Alpha, and -O2 triggers
> optimizer bugs in gcc on that architecture. I've just been editing the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Landry writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Apache Software Foundation Announces SpamAssassin 3.0 Release
>
> Very sad that the Pyzor time-out issue never got resolved throughout the
> pre-r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin writes:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> > Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> In the process of trying to track statistics in SpamAssassin (and other
> >> programs), and I'm thinki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kenneth Porter writes:
> Every time I see a spam story on SlashDot I think how the SlashDot effect
> could be used for good by getting everyone to visit the spammer's site and
> take it to its knees, while driving up the spammer's bandwidth bill. Ch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shane Metler writes:
> Answering my own question ...
>
> Well I was able to find a BUG report that (at present) says 'body' and
> 'rawbody' debug output has been removed from 3.0.0.
I don't think it was in there in the first place ;) However if I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
snowjack writes:
> David Brodbeck wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:26:12 -0700, snowjack wrote
> >>Yeah, and it is true that SpamAssassin uses lots of RAM (20M per
> >>process?) So what, RAM is cheap!
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, some of that 20M i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Thompson writes:
> disclaimer: I posted this to comp.lang.perl.modules (no reply yet), but since
> this list is the FIRST place I looked, I'll send here as well.
>
> Hello,
>
> Until yesterday, I was happily using a combination of Mail::Audit
t all ;)
- --j.
Lucas Albers writes:
> Could you use the embedded perl?
> Mimedefang uses that for better memory sharing between processes, appears
> to work on most platforms running 5.6 or later of perl.
>
> Justin Mason said:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ray writes:
> I see this is already in bugzilla. Should we just depreciate that rule for
> now? It is really screwing up my scores.
As the bz bug says -- it's a symptom as much as anything else. so adding
support for the Received header format it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jay Ehrhart writes:
> The non-deliverable reports are coming from my Linux apache user.
> Non-deliverables usually come from root. I am running apache on the server
> with forms. The forms software is the latest version and patches.
>
> Can anybody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Apthorpe writes:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION:
> >
> > If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will
> > have m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Will Yardley writes:
> Has anyone else seen a problem w/ spamd dying sometimes (after working
> for a while)? I have been seeing this in the 3.0 rcs. I'm about to
> upgrade to 3.0 release, but I'm wondering if anyone else has seen this.
>
> Much more
A little OT...
This presentation from this year's Black Hat Briefings is really
quite interesting --
http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-04/bh-us-04-kret.pdf
It really does look like there may be some use of spam, specifically
hashbusters and "chaff" headers, as a covert channel. Ho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There's a new fix, which needs some testing in the bugzilla,
at http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3649 .
If it fixes the issue, it'll go into 3.0.1. please test ;)
- --j.
Erik Slooff writes:
> > Hello
> >
> > yesterday i've done s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Ed Kasky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 6:01 PM
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: Congratulations and Thank You!!
> >
> >
> >Just wanted to pas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Will Yardley writes:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 10:22:01AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Will Yardley writes:
>
> > > Has anyone else seen a problem w/ spamd dying sometimes (after working
> > > for a while)? I have b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What Matt said ;) the perceptron really hates FPs.
Also, another feature of the perceptron is that, if two rules hit the same
spams and the same hams, it'll spread the scores equally between those two
rules.
e.g.: if RULE_1 hits a certain set of sp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher X. Candreva writes:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> > OK, I'm officially running 3.0 in production now. The upgrade was
> > miraculously easy. Despite my paranoia that something was going to bite me
> > in the behind, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher X. Candreva writes:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Keith Hackworth wrote:
>
> > I ran into this too and I emailed the developer for this module about
> > this. I haven't seen a response yet. I fixed it by modifying his perl
>
> Well, he respo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Parker writes:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 03:07:08PM -0700, Kelson wrote:
> > (Developers: It might be worth mentioning the minimum 3.0-compatible
> > versions for MD, Amavis, and other popular things-that-call-SA.)
>
> Why?
>
> How are deve
My slides from the presentation I gave at Toorcon 2004, 'Spam Forensics:
Reverse-Engineering Spammer Tactics', are now up, if anyone's interested
in having a read ;)
http://spamassassin.apache.org/presentations/2004-09-Toorcon/html
--j.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:42:51PM +0200, Maurice Lucas wrote:
> > >OK - I think I have narrowed down what is happening with this, though I
> > >don't know why. I have placed my local.cf file in a non-standard
> > >directo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> > if the init.pre is never read from what you specify as --siteconfigpath,
> > that's a bug -- could you report it to the bugzilla?(ho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> Very nice. Page 13: Detecting Hashbusters, 2, who the hell figured that out?
> Damn!
;)
> SARE has run into the problem that there isn't much NEW in spam to tag on.
> SA, SURBL, and SARE have 99% of everything covered. Like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Burger writes:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:40:18PM -0600, Lucas Albers wrote:
> > > Some options kick you in the face.
> > > Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting.
> >
> > Ouch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin writes:
> Wanted to share a recent email that I got, that SpamAssassin didn't pick
> up on as being spam. I have one crucial question afterwards.
I've been seeing more and more of these -- and the %MAKE_TEXT[5] ones
too.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Brodbeck writes:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:00:51 -0700, Potato Chip wrote
> > It's happened to me about 3 times, where an email will be sent to my
> > server that specifically causes the problem. Killing the spamd process
> > causes the sending M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jerry Glomph Black writes:
> spamd 3.0 does preforking of the child processes.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, but WHY do the children have such enormous RSS
> numbers already when started (>20 Meg per process)? To me, this makes
> no sense.
>
> 3.0 h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Tucker writes:
> Michael Parker wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Morris Jones wrote:
> >
> >>I watched a spamd child grow to 250MB yesterday on a single message. I
> >>have a suspicion that the memory usage growth is happeni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kai Schaetzl writes:
> The problem seems to exists on all of our Bayes databases and I think the
> cause is not "bad" data, but simply the way the SA expiry algorithm works.
> There are no negative atimes or atimes in the future. If the database
>
Hey all --
I've been considering possible improvements to how we figure out what
rules are effective.
Currently we use the S/O ratio and hit-rate of each individual rule, in
other words, if a rule hits a lot of spam, and little nonspam, we detect
that and consider it "good".
However, that doesn'
their outlook or any other
client? Acutally, how does a user tell the system about any kind of false
+ve's?
Also, does anyone know of a good base config file
for a plesk system? For example does a plesk system use sql to store user
details/prefs etc?
Many Thanks,
Justin Fielding,Intel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott A Crosby writes:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:49:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
>
> > However, that doesn't take in account the situation where multiple rules
> > are hitting mostly the same mail;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Rumpf writes:
> I've seen a few messages recently that contained the header
>
> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: PoHgCaAr
>
> My questions are, are they trying to simulate something like hash cash? Does
> anyone know of a MUA that ins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
martin f krafft writes:
> also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1420 +0200]:
> > > Only forward spam that SpamAssassin does not currently
> > > automatically detect correctly.
> >
> > All of it?
>
> And with or without Bayesian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
email builder writes:
> Greetings,
>
> I have been under the apparently false presumption that spamd prcessed
> its messages in memory (perhaps this explains why each spamd process can
> oft take up to 25% cpu?). I recently looked in /tmp and found
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
64MB should be plenty -- those files shouldn't stick around once
a scan has completed, and they should all be 250KB or less in
size.
In my experience tmpfs helps quite a lot, but in this case it's
a trivial amount of the overall total runtime.
- --j
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
> > Has anyone else experienced this problem? I will try to set up a separate
>
> Yep, you aren't the first. 2-3 other people have commented on this. I
> don't know if there is an official bug on this particular aspect or not;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: ChupaCabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:56 AM
> >Cc: SpamAssassin Users
> >Subject: Re: OT: Ninja Blanket
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Kenneth Porter wrote:
> >
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ray writes:
> There are bugtrack entries for the ALL_TRUSTED problem that you are
> describing. On my own network we were seeing all spam hit with -3.3 on
> ALL_TRUSTED. We are using SA on Postfix as a "man in the middle" relay from
> our AV to our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sahil Tandon writes:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> > That said, it sounds like your installation may be messed up
> > since init.pre was missing.
>
> init.pre wasn't missing; the .sample was there since it should be
> modified to suit the admin's needs
.orig [111] (#4.3.0) - Illegal seek
Oct 18 04:44:27 plesk X-Qmail-Scanner-1.23st:
[plesk.okulyillari.com109806386566013302] Unable to open pipe to
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue.orig [111] (#4.3.0) -
In my mail log.
Many Thanks,
Justin Fielding,Intelliweb Ltd UK.
A mission statement is defin
SBL and XBL but have not worked out if I do
that via SA or qmail.
Many Thanks,
Justin Fielding,
Intelliweb Ltd UK.
A mission statement is defined as "a long awkward sentence that demonstrates
management's inability to think clearly." All good companies have one. -
]: server successfully spawned child
process, pid 12744
Oct 18 17:31:20 plesk spamd[12732]: server successfully spawned child
process, pid 12745
So I definatly don't think it is reading the local.cf
Many Thanks,
Justin Fielding,
Intelliweb Ltd UK.
A mission statement is defined as &q
I added:
URIBL_SBL sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
to my local.cf, should this work?
Many Thanks,
Justin Fielding,
Intelliweb Ltd UK.
A mission statement is defined as "a long awkward sentence that demonstrates
management's inability to think clearly." All good companies have one. -
S
PROTECTED] root]# spamassassin --lint
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]#
Looks ok now I have the use_dcc = 0 in local.cf.
It seems to be picking the directory up ok. Where do I add the DNSBL of
spamhaus? /etc/init.d/spamassassin ?
Many Thanks,
Justin Fielding,
Intelliweb Ltd UK.
A mission statement is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan --
I don't know of one, but that'd be a great page for the Wiki
as well, for future use ;)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/
- --j.
Dan Barker writes:
> I'm a tiny ISP (/WISP - about 50 users) and I've decided to roll out
> Spamassa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Parsons writes:
> Howdy.
>
> Following up on this thread... My spamd children don't seem to be
> sharing much memory with their parents:
>
>PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU
> COMMAND
> 14692 alias 17
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Parsons writes:
> > yep -- various versions of the Linux kernel do not measure "shared"
> > memory in the same way.
> >
> > vanilla 2.4.18/19: reports "shared" correctly
> > 2.4.x with Red Hat patches: incorrect
> > 2.6.x: incorrect
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan Munday writes:
> Does anyone have any knowledge on how the development of hascash is going?
> I've been searching around this afternoon and can find only a little
> information (2 pages of Google search results) out there. Particularly
> looking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SpamAssassin 3.0.1 is released! 3.0.1 contains some important
bugfixes, and is recommended.
Highlights:
- excessive memory-usage fixes
- bug fixed which stopped DCC, Pyzor working with amavisd
- deprecate RCVD_IN_RFC_IPWHOIS
- user_prefs we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
- --j.
Tim B writes:
> email builder wrote:
> > I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
> > improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Thurman writes:
> On 10/20/04 8:40 AM, "Matt Kettler" wrote:
>
> > Mailscanner is inappropriately impatient with SpamAssassin. It's timeouts
> > were designed in the pre-bayes era, and are not designed to accommodate
> > bayes housekeeping chor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sahil Tandon writes:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2004, 3:09:53 PM, John Andersen wrote:
> >
> >>What file are you finding this above bug in?
> >>I don't see that anywhere on my 3.0.1 install!
> >
> >
> > There should be some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher X. Candreva writes:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> > - avoid bug in Sys::Hostname::Long that renames the hostname when "make
> > test" is run
>
> According to changelog:
>
&
1 - 100 of 1379 matches
Mail list logo
