Having some difficulty grasping why some SPAM is getting thru yet some similar
is marked.
They have different source email address and subject, yet identical "layout" 3
http links, 3 graphics items and like that.
When I save the message source (Mime.822 file) and do sa-learn --spam file it
. . .
> That's very little information to go on.
Sorry. We learn as we go.
> Posting samples (with _all_ headers intact) on a pastebin or on a personal
> website so we can see them might yield some advice or new rules. Please
> don't send samples to the list, just the URLs where the samples
>>> On 3/31/2012 at 8:22 AM, Michael Scheidell
wrote:
> On 3/31/12 8:04 AM, joea wrote:
>> starting below my local and MP details? Hopefully, the latter, as the
> former leaves me feeling a bit exposed.
>>
> we already know everything you think you want
>>> On 3/31/2012 at 6:27 PM, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:17:52 -0400
> joea wrote:
>
>
>> Beyond that, where can I find the difference, in a SPAM learning
>> sense, between "sa-learn --spam filename" and "spamassassin -r <
>> filen
While exploring Bayes stuff, (wanting to populate appropriately for my setup),
found reference to removing headers that might confuse Bayes.
Specifically bayes_ignore_header.
The example they show is an X header. Seems the ones spamassassin puts in
there will be ignored without intervention.
I find some SPAM slips through un marked, mostly from certain country codes (in
the senders email address/domain).
I was thinking of a regex to taste and paste (say add 5 to SPAM score), but
don't really want to reinvent a wheel. Or run over my own toes.
I did find a plug in or two, but th
Aside - I originally sent this last evening, it was rejected to the subject
line. Let's hope this one is acceptable.
>>
I get a few of those emails with zip attachments, slipping thru. Scanner,
Airline tickets, etc. I guess these are "malware" rather than SPAM, so I began
looking at amavis.
when running sa-update in debug, always end up with this:
channel: current version is 895075, new version is 895075, skipping channel
Are there no updates, or am I misconfigured for rules updates?
>
>"SpamAssassin version 3.3.2 has not had a rule update since 2012-02-25."
>
>From this, should I conclude there will be no updates to earlier versions
>(3.2.x for instance) ? Must I upgrade in order to update?
joe a.
>>> On 4/12/2012 at 4:30 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 1:34 PM, joea wrote:
>>> "SpamAssassin version 3.3.2 has not had a rule update since 2012-02-25."
>>>
>> > From this, should I conclude there will be no updates to ear
I see where one can forward mail to location and have spamassassin scan them.
For both spam and ham I gather.
Wondering what settings to change to have it ignore any additional info the
forward adds. Yes, I am looking for a bit of spoon feeding here, as, well,
it's been along day.
Having just un tar'd, a quick look at the .raw files tells me I had better ask
those who may know.
So, I'm asking. . . where can I find what to feed these fellows? And . . .
time to relax for a while.
Is there a known packaging for SUSE SLES10 ?
Getting "scanned document", "pills" and stuff with a url of "blah.blah.ru"
Some of these contain something like the snippet below, apparently put in by
the sender or perhaps the mail provider.
***
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:12:23 -0300
Attempting to simplify my life, looked to ways to forward ham and spam to the
spamassassin box and have it look a them, without further intervention on my
part.
The link http://gtmp.org/pub/sa-postfix.en.html takes me to a page where there
is nothing useful (AFAICT).
The next link https://po2.
>>> On 4/22/2012 at 9:36 AM, "joea" wrote:
> Attempting to simplify my life, looked to ways to forward ham and spam to the
> spamassassin box and have it look a them, without further intervention on my
> part.
>
> The link http://gtmp.org/pub/sa-postfi
>>> On 4/22/2012 at 10:29 PM, Dave Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, joea wrote:
>
>> Attempting to simplify my life, looked to ways to forward ham and spam to
> the spamassassin box and have it look a them, without further intervention on
> my part.
>>
&
When using a script to help automate submission to sa-learn, learned (so to
speak) thru the kindness of others, that there
are different results when querying sa-learn for tokens, as different users.
The script runs as "script-user" while I normally query as "root". I puzzled
over why the
>>> On 4/24/2012 at 2:49 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 2:38 PM, joea wrote:
>> When using a script to help automate submission to sa-learn, learned (so to
> speak) thru the kindness of others, that there
>> are different results when querying sa-learn for
SA version 3.4.5
Since yesterday 2/2/22 (gasp!) . . . I've noticed an up tick in missed SPAM
from .co domain. Though obvious SPAM
weight loss, phish, "personals", they are scoring rather low.
Added a custom rule for that domain, which should deal with it, but wondering
if I missed some chan
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 10:50 -0500, joea- lists wrote:
>> SA version 3.4.5
>>
>> Since yesterday 2/2/22 (gasp!) . . . I've noticed an up tick in missed
>> SPAM from .co domain. Though obvious SPAM
>> weight loss, phish, "personals", they are scori
>> On Thu, 2022‑02‑03 at 10:50 ‑0500, joea‑ lists wrote:
SA version 3.4.5
>>>
>>> Since yesterday 2/2/22 (gasp!) . . . I've noticed an up tick in
missed
>>> SPAM from .co domain. Though obvious SPAM
>>> weight loss, phish, "personals"
> On 2022‑02‑03 16:50, joea‑ lists wrote:
>> SA version 3.4.5
>
> old version, stable is 3.4.6 now
Unless there is a pressing reason to update right away, I prefer to
wait for the vendor
supplied package to update. But that is not a hard rule for me.
>> Since y
After a long outage due to weather, a restart found spamd not running (timed
out on startup, a story for later),
and a lot of spam got through.
Now that it is running, should I re-submit these dozens or hundreds of emails
to allow them to be properly
classified, drop them in "missed SPAM" or ju
Nutshell: I want to add "Reply-to: (some address)" to messages without same.
While it seems feasible to do this in postfix, I wanted to explore doing it
with minimal fuss in SAm or if a FILTER or MILTER might be required.
So far I've only found "Basic Message Tagging Options".
joe a.
>>>
> "joea‑ lists" writes:
>
>> Nutshell: I want to add "Reply‑to: (some address)" to messages
without same.
>
>
> Please do explain why. It sounds like a clear standards violation
> because Reply‑To may only be set by the sender.
&
>>>
> On 2022‑02‑14 at 12:31:18 UTC‑0500 (Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:31:18 ‑0500)
> joea‑ lists
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Nutshell: I want to add "Reply‑to: (some address)" to messages
without
>> same.
>>
>> While it seems feasible to do
26 matches
Mail list logo
