On 2 Nov 2004 at 21:07, Eric Krichbaum wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SpamdOnWindows
I am using cygwin
Directions still worked fine for me with 3.0.1
Well I'm happy for you :)
I'll fiddle and get it - its good to know that it does work without
issue -
THanks
-Nick
At
I have a problem I think relates to the priority of holding vulnerabilities
before the actions of filters kicks in.
My filter file, among other things, has the following:
BODY 1 CONTAINS GenerationX Solutions
The action in the $default$.junkmail is to delete. This works when no
I have a problem I think relates to the priority of holding vulnerabilities
before the actions of filters kicks in.
Declude Virus by default takes priority over Declude JunkMail. So an
E-mail held by Declude Virus would not even be scanned by Declude JunkMail.
My filter file, among other
Scott,
Is there any size limitation (# of entries per file) imposed on
fromfiles or the number or fromfiles you can have listed in the
Global.cfg?
Thanks,
Keith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday,
Looks like either way I have to go through 100's of held messages daily to
find that 99.9% are spam and then manually delete them. I guess I'll pull
the ol' Visual Basic out and work up a solution.
Thanks,
John
(Scott wrote)
Your option here would be to add a line AVAFTERJM ON to the
John, why are you worried about viruses being held in your spam folder? If
they're held, they're effectively quarantined and the user isn't bothered by
it, just as they're not bothered by the spam in that folder.
Please share,
Andrew 8)
-Original Message-
From: John Carter
look at a program that I wrote. We have been using it very successfully for
about a year now
http://www.ssc-isp.net/holdanalyzer/
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Carter
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:51 AM
To whome tried to qnwnload my hold analyzer with the following information
DLA Downloaded by
Name: Why Do You
Title: Request
Company Name: This Information
Number of domains on IMail: 1
Address: 123 No
City: No
State: NO
Zip: NO
Phone Number: NO
Phone Extension: NO
Email Address: [EMAIL
Can you use the SKIPIFWEIGHT and MAXWEIGHT in the fromfiles?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters
Scott,
Is there any size limitation (# of entries per file) imposed on
fromfiles or the number or fromfiles you can have listed in the
Global.cfg?
No.
Can you use the SKIPIFWEIGHT and MAXWEIGHT in the fromfiles?
No.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail:
But BANEXT ZIP and EZIP and BANZIPEXT are dumping into \Virus\ too.
Although F-Prot seems to be catching 100% of the infected ones, it didn't
always do so. I've been burned on that. So mixed up in \Virus\ are held
detected vulnerabilities, banned ext, and banned zips. I go in find the
legit Zips
I did not file this request, but I do post simular forms to other sites on occasion. Generally, my reasoning is:I don't know you, and I don't trust you not to spam me. It's none of your bussiness. It's pretentious to assume that you can require me to give you my email address. Besides, I like
The skipifweight... the run order is (rbl tests, external tests, fromfile,
ipfile, then filters). So weighting wise, you have only accumulated have
your scores at this time.
Maxweight: As of 1.78 the fromfile test type will now stop processing at
first match. So Maxweight wouldn't be useful.
Title: Message
tip:
if you don't trust a requestor but need to supply a valid address and would
prefer to simply filter the mail, rather than clutter the requestor's database,
you can use SpamHole instead. SpamHole will give you a time-limited valid
address on their domain, so that you can
Title: Message
Thanks
for the information. I can now block smaphole address from downloading the
software???
Kevin
Bilbee
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Colbeck,
AndrewSent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:07 PMTo:
You've got more faith in F-Prot than I do.
According to my logs, F-prot is missing encrypted zips that McAfee and
ClamAV catch here.
- Original Message -
From: John Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
Title: Message
Of
course! It's a free country. Oh wait. I'm in
Canada.
Andrew
8)
-Original Message-From: Kevin Bilbee
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November
03, 2004 1:13 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: Message
Or Snapple addresses...
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Bilbee
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 4:13
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for the information. I can now block smaphole address
Boy, what an attitude.
You must be a Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde,
as I am sure you treat your clients with better respect than that.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
... which is why I hold ezips (along with others) and manually review. (Also
should clarify earlier email-- F-Prot seems to catching non-ezips.)
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:11 PM
Honestly, The best Method of retrieving this information is
to do the following...
Make a downloadable version, that has time expiration requiring
no user information to be provided, and if they would like more use
they have to register it for free to remove the time lock., And state
the reason
On 1 Nov 2004 at 19:08, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Sandy,
I have this working with SA 3.01 very nice..!
Question - with your new 'e' switch - can the weight returned be
capped eg a max return value?
-Nick
All,
SPAMC32 has been updated to more easily function as a weight test in
addition
Anyone have an issue using gmail.com email that is fails the
subjectchars test if you place more than one word in the subject line?
Line reads:
LONGSUBJsubjectchars60 * 0 0
Subject Line used: Test Me
Keith
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
I am running Declude Junkmail (standard) v1.75. I keep getting the
following line in the Declude logs:
Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH
The line WHITELIST AUTH is un-commented in the global.cfg file. Could
someone shed some light on what's going on here? I'm not sure what
Invalid WHITELIST
I am running Declude Junkmail (standard) v1.75. I keep getting the
following line in the Declude logs:
Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH
The line WHITELIST AUTH is un-commented in the global.cfg file. Could
someone shed some light on what's going on here? I'm not sure what
Invalid WHITELIST
Keith, I think you've caught a bug in Declude.
I've verified what you found, and I'm enclosing a sample GMail with complete
header (not mangled through a mail client).
What I think Declude is doing is finding the text subject: in the domain
keys header, instead of the the subject: line that
Scott,
What does the line Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH?
I thought WHITELIST AUTH allowed me to white list my users that authenticate.
Thanks,
Mike
At 04:29 PM 11/3/2004, you wrote:
I am running Declude Junkmail (standard) v1.75. I keep getting the
following line in the Declude logs:
Invalid
Andrew, I have been wondering the same, but have not had time to post it.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, November 03,
- Original Message -
From: Michael Graveen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott,
What does the line Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH?
I thought WHITELIST AUTH allowed me to white list my users that
authenticate.
You're correct, that's what it does. But like Scott said, you have to be
running
Oh, OK. I didn't understand at first. Thanks for the clarification. I
will install the latest version of Declude.
Thanks,
Mike
At 05:13 PM 11/3/2004, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Michael Graveen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott,
What does the line Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH?
I
Question - with your new 'e' switch - can the weight returned be
capped eg a max return value?
Nope, not as currently implemented.
You can use multiple sets of -lt and -ht switches to create similar
behavior, possibly including negative weights and TESTSFAILED filters
to strike a
All,
Yet another update to SPAMC32 that's useful when deployed as a Declude
'weight' test type. See the release notes below and download from the
traditional /release folder.
--Sandy
--
SPAMC32 Release 0.5.57
11/3/2004
*
Release notes for
32 matches
Mail list logo
