Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 2006-01-16 03:00 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone help explain the status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself error message, please? It actually is pretty self explanationary. It means that a mail was received (from a host that is allowed to relay, in this case localhost), destined for a domain for which the mail server is the primary MX, but Postfix is not set to deliver the mail locally so would otherwise try to relay it back to itself. This is detected to prevent relaying loops. Check your $mydestination setting. -- Michael Kjörling, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://michael.kjorling.com/ * ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML Mail, Proprietary Attachments * * . No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings . * pgpMUyYaqc06J.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 16 Jan 2006, at 08:53, Michael Kjorling wrote: On 2006-01-16 03:00 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone help explain the status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself error message, please? It actually is pretty self explanationary. It means that a mail was received (from a host that is allowed to relay, in this case localhost), destined for a domain for which the mail server is the primary MX, but Postfix is not set to deliver the mail locally so would otherwise try to relay it back to itself. This is detected to prevent relaying loops. Check your $mydestination setting. This was in fact set correctly - amongst the first things I checked. The issue was with Code Listing 2.5: /etc/postfix/transport in the Mailfilter Guide, which of course I followed blindly. The guide states at the beginning that This server is meant to run in front of the mail servers actually keeping the mail accounts but I wanted to deliver to local maildirs; it seems that code listing 2.5 is the only section that needs to be changed in order to achieve this, hence my overlooking it. For local delivery /etc/postfix/transport should read: mydomain.tldlocal: Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
I had a similar problem with a school's mail system. I setup spam
assasin but found it identified the same nicely but didnt do any thing
about it. Now there are a few things that you particularly dont want
such as penixensizer and viagra and such...
What I landed up doing is defining a set of my own rules that detected
if penis, viagra, slut and such words occured it added a +10.0 to the
spam assassin rating so if is clearly identified as spam.
I then editted /etc/procmailrc file:
# send mail through SpamAssassin
:0 fw
* 256000
| /usr/bin/spamc -f
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
{
EXITCODE=67
:0:
/dev/null
}
So any mail with a spam level greater or equal then 10.0 gets sent
into the ether and the sender gets a mail back saying email address
does not exist. This ruthless method has reduced the spam
considerably.
What you really should do with spam assassin is move all the mail that
is flagged as spam to the users spam folder and let them sort it out
but in a school environment /dev/null is a lot more suitable.
Cheers
Rav
--
Ryan Viljoen Bsc(Eng) (Electrical)
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.
- Mark Twain
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
Hi, On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:08:38 + Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I emerged SpamAssasin on a mailserver the other day, added the appropriate line to /etc/postfix/master.cf and it all seems to be working ok. But it doesn't seem to be very accurate in the default configuration - I have a mailbox with about 4,000 messages, approximately 98% of which are spam and it gets only about 1/3 of them. The statement in `perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf`that 5.0 is the default setting, is quite aggressive does not seem true here. I'd strongly suggest using the Bayesian filters, per-user, that is. For a mail setup at my company for about 20 people with high mail traffic I'm running a nightly cron job to archieve that. Basically it works like this: - All incoming mail is scanned by Spamassassin, Bayes enabled - Users have virtual homedirs for Spamassassin - A nightly cron job learns all mail in users' INBOX.Spam.LearnSpam and INBOX.Spam.LearnHam folders (it's a simple shell script) That way all users can put mails they'd like to be learned as being spam in the respective IMAP folder and have them automatically learned overnight. Simple setup, highly effective, simple for my users. In order to give more hints to setup this, it would be helpful to know which mail storage is being used (IMAP? What server? What storage?). -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 15 Jan 2006, at 10:15, Ryan Viljoen wrote: What I landed up doing is defining a set of my own rules that detected if penis, viagra, slut and such words occured it added a +10.0 to the spam assassin rating so if is clearly identified as spam. I'm somewhat cautious about this. I know you get very high hit rates with this, but it doesn't make any allowances for false positives - if I make a list of banned words like this, one of them is _sure_ to turn up one day. I don't plan to dump the detected spam to /dev/null, but to a separate folder (SpamAssassin is already doing this nicely with the % age it detects) but my suspicion is that users will probably never check that Junk folder once they find it rarely contains anything of interest. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 15 Jan 2006, at 12:56, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: I'd strongly suggest using the Bayesian filters, per-user, that is... That way all users can put mails they'd like to be learned as being spam in the respective IMAP folder and have them automatically learned overnight. Simple setup, highly effective, simple for my users. In order to give more hints to setup this, it would be helpful to know which mail storage is being used (IMAP? What server? What storage?). What improvement rate are you seeing for this, please? My concern with these particular users, who are not particularly email-savvy, is that they ain't going to train the filters. I just don't see it happening. And if I teach them to train the filters by dragging dropping into the learn folder then I anticipate perhaps just one of them complaining but why can't I just right-click it and `mark as junk' in Outlook?. I'd really prefer all spam-filtering to be invisible to the user. I don't demand a high success rate: Bayesian filtering should get 99.5% or above, I think, but I'd be happy with 95%. SpamAssassin is currently getting about 33%, which is next to useless. IMAP server is Dovecot storing messages in maildirs in users' home directories - this makes it convenient for your suggestion, but I just don't really want to go there. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On Jan 15, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Stroller wrote: On 15 Jan 2006, at 10:15, Ryan Viljoen wrote: What I landed up doing is defining a set of my own rules that detected if penis, viagra, slut and such words occured it added a +10.0 to the spam assassin rating so if is clearly identified as spam. This is exactly what the navy did while my wife was in it. Unfortunately, my wife is a pediatrician, and so has quite a bit of legitimate email with many of those words in it. Be careful of your userbase demographics when setting up things like this. I'm somewhat cautious about this. I know you get very high hit rates with this, but it doesn't make any allowances for false positives - if I make a list of banned words like this, one of them is _sure_ to turn up one day. I don't plan to dump the detected spam to /dev/null, but to a separate folder (SpamAssassin is already doing this nicely with the %age it detects) but my suspicion is that users will probably never check that Junk folder once they find it rarely contains anything of interest. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On Sunday 15 January 2006 04:08, Stroller wrote: I'd be very happy with a 95% success rate on spam detection, but obviously false positives are a Bad Thing. Never tried it myself, but I've read many articles that say that dspam is a better filter than spamassassin, and can be trained by users simply by instructing them to forward false negatives to some special email address of your choice; after this initial setup, it requires very little maintenance, both for the end users and for the admin. Read something here: http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam/ -- Much of the excitement we get out of our work is that we don't really know what we are doing. - Edsger W. Dijkstra -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 15 Jan 2006, at 14:36, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: On Sunday 15 January 2006 04:08, Stroller wrote: I'd be very happy with a 95% success rate on spam detection, but obviously false positives are a Bad Thing. Never tried it myself, but I've read many articles that say that dspam is a better filter than spamassassin, ... http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam/ It does indeed seem very good, but again it requires training, which is something I'm trying to avoid in this instance. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On Monday 16 January 2006 04:28, Stroller wrote: It does indeed seem very good, but again it requires training, which is something I'm trying to avoid in this instance. Stroller. No solution you have is going to be perfect I suspect. Really it does come down to individual requirements, because everyone is different. It is much easier to offer a full filter service to clients, then If they want it turn it on - just like many ISPs do - they can. So 'training' is minimised to maybee a simple FAQ and users can take care of the rest. Course this is not useful if your site is getting hammered by spam :( Otherwise, for example with spamassasin, each client can set up their own account with some effective filters for their own type of email. I'm using kmail with my own account and that has a very useful wizard that creates a seperate folder for spam, learns and dumps any that I manually mark as spam, and moves it all to that folser, where I can easily review it. Also I use another module called mail-filter/dcc that seems to help greatly. -- Simon: I never shot anyone before. Book: I was there, son. I'm fair sure you haven't shot anyone yet. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 15 Jan 2006, at 16:44, Glenn Enright wrote: On Monday 16 January 2006 04:28, Stroller wrote: It does indeed seem very good, but again it requires training, which is something I'm trying to avoid in this instance. Stroller. No solution you have is going to be perfect I suspect. Really it does come down to individual requirements, because everyone is different. Indeed. It very much DOESN'T need to be perfect in this case - just significantly better than 30%. Otherwise, for example with spamassasin, each client can set up their own account with some effective filters for their own type of email. I'm using kmail with my own account and that has a very useful wizard that creates a seperate folder for spam, learns and dumps any that I manually mark as spam, and moves it all to that folser, where I can easily review it. Outlook - which is a client requirement - seems to do something similar. But either it's remarkably ineffective or it doesn't really like IMAP. I assume the latter to be the case. Also I use another module called mail-filter/dcc that seems to help greatly. I'm looking at dcc now - it looks useful, but I'm not yet clear on how to configure it (with SpamAssassin?). Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
Hi, On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:07:51 + Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jan 2006, at 12:56, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: I'd strongly suggest using the Bayesian filters, per-user, that is... [...] What improvement rate are you seeing for this, please? About 99% of _Spam_ mails are positively recognized. Up to now I've never encountered a false positive. My concern with these particular users, who are not particularly email-savvy, is that they ain't going to train the filters. I just don't see it happening. And if I teach them to train the filters by dragging dropping into the learn folder then I anticipate perhaps just one of them complaining but why can't I just right-click it and `mark as junk' in Outlook?. True. My answer is: because then you'll get all the spam in your webmail when being on business trip :-) Basically, I teach them to use server-side mail filtering with the same reasoning. But it makes me think: Does Outlook set some kind of flag to the mail? Does it note anything in the headers? I'd really prefer all spam-filtering to be invisible to the user. I don't demand a high success rate: Bayesian filtering should get 99.5% or above, I think, but I'd be happy with 95%. In fact, lots of my users are happy with about that rate and without learning of Spam. Bayesian filters are activated for all of them, but they are only trained by autolearning. SpamAssassin is currently getting about 33%, which is next to useless. agreed, and I bet you can improve that. You can also decide to have all users share your Bayesian database. So you don't have to teach them to learn Spam. IMAP server is Dovecot storing messages in maildirs in users' home directories - this makes it convenient for your suggestion, but I just don't really want to go there. You can, as described, reduce the concept at many points... -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
What I landed up doing is defining a set of my own rules that detected if penis, viagra, slut and such words occured it added a +10.0 to the spam assassin rating so if is clearly identified as spam. I'm somewhat cautious about this. I know you get very high hit rates with this, but it doesn't make any allowances for false positives - if I make a list of banned words like this, one of them is _sure_ to turn up one day. Yeah I have this enabled in a school environment and the majority of the words I have in the list either way are not suitable for a school environment. I don't plan to dump the detected spam to /dev/null, but to a separate folder (SpamAssassin is already doing this nicely with the % age it detects) but my suspicion is that users will probably never check that Junk folder once they find it rarely contains anything of interest. Again some kids dont check their mail and dont bother to maintain their inbox so putting the spam in a seperate folder would just allow it to accumulate. -- Ryan Viljoen Bsc(Eng) (Electrical) Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. - Mark Twain -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 15 January 2006 21:33, Ryan Viljoen wrote: What I landed up doing is defining a set of my own rules that detected if penis, viagra, slut and such words occured it added a +10.0 to the spam assassin rating so if is clearly identified as spam. I'm somewhat cautious about this. I know you get very high hit rates with this, but it doesn't make any allowances for false positives - if I make a list of banned words like this, one of them is _sure_ to turn up one day. Yeah I have this enabled in a school environment and the majority of the words I have in the list either way are not suitable for a school environment. I am just curious here. Penis isn't a word suitable in a school environment? They don't teach biology? How about breast or breast feeding? They shouldn't be mentioned in schools? Just in case you black listed tit as well, how about tit for tat? It isn't just an expression, it's also a coined name for a certain strategy in game theory. Explicitely black listing certain words takes them out of context and can backfire badly. Uwe -- Unix is sexy: who | grep -i blonde | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount sleep -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 15 Jan 2006, at 19:15, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: ...And if I teach them to train the filters by dragging dropping into the learn folder then I anticipate perhaps just one of them complaining but why can't I just right-click it and `mark as junk' in Outlook?. True. My answer is: because then you'll get all the spam in your webmail when being on business trip The MS answer to this is to use Exchange its webmail, which is basically identical to Outlook itself. I really like this level of integration, and I'd probably be happy using it if it was open /or documented. But it makes me think: Does Outlook set some kind of flag to the mail? Does it note anything in the headers? Good question. I'll have to do some homework so I can answer that. In fact, lots of my users are happy with about that rate and without learning of Spam. Bayesian filters are activated for all of them, but they are only trained by autolearning. SpamAssassin is currently getting about 33%, which is next to useless. agreed, and I bet you can improve that. You can also decide to have all users share your Bayesian database. So you don't have to teach them to learn Spam. I see... in the default /etc/spamassassin/local.cf it states: # Use Bayesian classifier (default: 1) # use_bayes 1 # Bayesian classifier auto-learning (default: 1) # bayes_auto_learn 1 I guess this means that I'm in a similar configuration to yours by default - presumably SA will start learning pretty quick. How do I configure where the Bayesian database is stored, please? Stroller -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 15 Jan 2006, at 06:48, William Kenworthy wrote: On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 03:08 +, Stroller wrote: Hi there, I emerged SpamAssasin on a mailserver the other day, added the http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/mailfilter-guide.xml The reason I avoided using this for some time was that I feel it doesn't EXPLAIN things very well. I had initially ignored that guide and set up Spamassassin as described in http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ IntegratedSpamdInPostfix - I didn't like the idea of having another instance of Postfix listening on port 10025 but after rereading I found it recommended to use the method described in the Gentoo Mailfilter Guide you linked to. So I have followed that guide all the way through, used netcat to confirm that Amavisd Postfix are listening on ports 10024 10025 respectively, and sent a mail through the system: Jan 16 02:51:35 baby postfix/pickup[7221]: 95F4636363: uid=1000 from=stroller Jan 16 02:51:35 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 95F4636363: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:35 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 95F4636363: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=1796, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtpd[7261]: connect from localhost [127.0.0.1] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtpd[7261]: 2875136369: client=localhost[127.0.0.1] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 2875136369: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 2875136369: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=2424, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby amavis[7144]: (07144-01) Passed CLEAN, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED], Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED], mail_id: Xq9Fg6PsmuKf, Hits: 2.777, 3594 ms Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtpd[7261]: disconnect from localhost[127.0.0.1] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7257]: 95F4636363: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], orig_to=info, relay=127.0.0.1 [127.0.0.1], delay=4, status=sent (250 2.6.0 Ok, id=07144-01, from MTA ([127.0.0.1]:10025): 250 Ok: queued as 2875136369) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 95F4636363: removed Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7262]: 2875136369: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=0, status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 63F853636A: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: from=, size=4128, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 2875136369: removed Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7262]: 63F853636A: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=0, status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: removed Jan 16 02:52:18 baby sudo: stroller : TTY=pts/0 ; PWD=/home/ stroller ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/usr/sbin/postqueue -p Can anyone help explain the status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself error message, please? Surely I have missed something obvious in following the instructions which as caused this. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
I've followed and used this setup a few times. I actually just got it up and running a few minutes ago. I did ignore most of the info about DCC and razor etc... and I agree with you, it isn't the best documentation. But I always thought postfix was the better free mailserv out there.. (at least from my experience) and spam and virus filtering, especially when free is really slick. All spams are sent to an email account. where I run sa-learn on it. It's pretty slick. As to your problem at hand, I'm not sure what's going on. Check your /etc/hosts or dns server and make sure your host has a valid entry. That's about all I can think of right now. Samir On 15 Jan 2006, at 06:48, William Kenworthy wrote: On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 03:08 +, Stroller wrote: Hi there, I emerged SpamAssasin on a mailserver the other day, added the http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/mailfilter-guide.xml The reason I avoided using this for some time was that I feel it doesn't EXPLAIN things very well. I had initially ignored that guide and set up Spamassassin as described in http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ IntegratedSpamdInPostfix - I didn't like the idea of having another instance of Postfix listening on port 10025 but after rereading I found it recommended to use the method described in the Gentoo Mailfilter Guide you linked to. So I have followed that guide all the way through, used netcat to confirm that Amavisd Postfix are listening on ports 10024 10025 respectively, and sent a mail through the system: Jan 16 02:51:35 baby postfix/pickup[7221]: 95F4636363: uid=1000 from=stroller Jan 16 02:51:35 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 95F4636363: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:35 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 95F4636363: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=1796, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtpd[7261]: connect from localhost [127.0.0.1] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtpd[7261]: 2875136369: client=localhost[127.0.0.1] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 2875136369: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 2875136369: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=2424, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby amavis[7144]: (07144-01) Passed CLEAN, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED], Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED], mail_id: Xq9Fg6PsmuKf, Hits: 2.777, 3594 ms Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtpd[7261]: disconnect from localhost[127.0.0.1] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7257]: 95F4636363: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], orig_to=info, relay=127.0.0.1 [127.0.0.1], delay=4, status=sent (250 2.6.0 Ok, id=07144-01, from MTA ([127.0.0.1]:10025): 250 Ok: queued as 2875136369) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 95F4636363: removed Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7262]: 2875136369: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=0, status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 63F853636A: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: from=, size=4128, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 2875136369: removed Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7262]: 63F853636A: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=0, status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: removed Jan 16 02:52:18 baby sudo: stroller : TTY=pts/0 ; PWD=/home/ stroller ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/usr/sbin/postqueue -p Can anyone help explain the status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself error message, please? Surely I have missed something obvious in following the instructions which as caused this. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ; 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34 /mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34/mn) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 16 Jan 2006, at 03:00, Stroller wrote: Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 63F853636A: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: from=, size=4128, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 2875136369: removed Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7262]: 63F853636A: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=0, status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: removed Jan 16 02:52:18 baby sudo: stroller : TTY=pts/0 ; PWD=/home/ stroller ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/usr/sbin/postqueue -p Can anyone help explain the status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself error message, please? Surely I have missed something obvious in following the instructions which as caused this. Ok... forget this. I fixed it by remerging postfix, running `etc- update` and over-writing the postfix configuration files and then modifying them from scratch following precisely the instructions in the Gentoo mailfiltering gateway guide. So I don't know what was wrong with them before - probably something that I'd configured in the initial instance of getting local mail delivery working - but they're sorted now. Apologies for cluttering the list, Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On Monday 16 January 2006 06:01, Stroller wrote: I'm looking at dcc now - it looks useful, but I'm not yet clear on how to configure it (with SpamAssassin?). perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC in the file /etc/spamassassin/init.pre add this line loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC and configure /etc/dcc/dcc.conf as required Be aware that some plugins use a lot of system resources, tho temporarily. -- Confucious say: woman who slide down bannister make monkey shine. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
On 16 Jan 2006, at 04:32, Stroller wrote: On 16 Jan 2006, at 03:00, Stroller wrote: Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/cleanup[7255]: 63F853636A: message- id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: from=, size=4128, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 2875136369: removed Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/smtp[7262]: 63F853636A: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=0, status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself) Jan 16 02:51:39 baby postfix/qmgr[7222]: 63F853636A: removed Jan 16 02:52:18 baby sudo: stroller : TTY=pts/0 ; PWD=/home/ stroller ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/usr/sbin/postqueue -p Can anyone help explain the status=bounced (mail for mail.validdomain.co.uk loops back to myself error message, please? Surely I have missed something obvious in following the instructions which as caused this. Ok... forget this. I fixed it by remerging postfix, running `etc- update` and over-writing the postfix configuration files... Nope, I lie. This didn't fix the problem, merely hid it. If anyone has any isight I'd be extremely grateful. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
Hi there, I emerged SpamAssasin on a mailserver the other day, added the appropriate line to /etc/postfix/master.cf and it all seems to be working ok. But it doesn't seem to be very accurate in the default configuration - I have a mailbox with about 4,000 messages, approximately 98% of which are spam and it gets only about 1/3 of them. The statement in `perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf`that 5.0 is the default setting, is quite aggressive does not seem true here. The installation is for a small site with about 5 users who won't be capable of much sophistication when it comes to training spam ham - it's a shame that something magical can't be done involving right- clicks in Outlook - so I'd just like a cheap cheerful way to improve accuracy. I'd be very happy with a 95% success rate on spam detection, but obviously false positives are a Bad Thing. I read something about Vipul's Razor so emerged it before emerging SpamAssasin - I think this means that SA is able to take advantage of it - but haven't looked yet into setting it up. Is it any good? I read stuff about training Razor returning feedback to the network, but that's really not an option here - is it possible just to use Razor as a leeching client? Thanks in advance for any suggestions, Stroller. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Improving SpamAssassin's accuracy...
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/mailfilter-guide.xml On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 03:08 +, Stroller wrote: Hi there, I emerged SpamAssasin on a mailserver the other day, added the -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
