-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Parker writes:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:21:06PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+- MIMEDefang: version 2.42 or later.
FWIW, I completely disagree with doing this. A) It will give the
impression that we support these programs (I
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3830
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 16:00 ---
Tony, good question. are there cases where it appears as return-path:foo?
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3818
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev@spamassassin.apache.org
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3817
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||3568
--- You are
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3568
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||3817
nThis|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3817
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|3568|3577
--- You are
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3577
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||3817
nThis|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3836
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 16:47 ---
'I don't think the packlist is reliable, or ever has been, IIRC.'
oops! incomplete comment. I mean I don't think it's been reliable
for *any* perl module that
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3747
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 16:53 ---
Subject: Re: make test fails on spamc_l
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 04:43:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that we can't rely on *any* port to
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3836
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 16:57 ---
Yeah, but if its trivial to add that support to Makefile.PL it could be nice
to do so. If it's more than, say, 10 lines of code I don't think its worth
it.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3831
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2376 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3845
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spamassassin-
|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3827
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 17:16 ---
'If things like SURBL are only going to list actual domains, we need to deal
with that correctly.'
what d'you mean -- actual registrar-boundary domains, or any
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3747
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 17:17 ---
Maybe at least for UNIX we could put some call to netstat in there to see if
we can find any closed port and try that one?
--- You are receiving this
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3831
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 17:17 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3831
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 17:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=2394)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2394action=view)
domain output list diff
I ran my listuri with the 3.0
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3831
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|RegistrarBoundaries module |[review] RegistrarBoundaries
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3805
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 01:44 ---
Good catch. Theo, would you please take ne.jp off this list?
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3827
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 01:57 ---
Does that mean domains like medecin.fr would stay in? I think the principle
of these is that doctors could register subdomains under that one, etc.
---
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3827
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 03:39 ---
Is medicin.fr an official subdomain by the French NIC (whatever it is
called)? (And is it actually abused?) If not, whats the difference to other
(free)
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 03:54 ---
I will go away but I am sick of no one listening when I try to help reduce
false positives in this program. No one wants to listen or care that someone
might
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 04:18 ---
Fred, please don't be upset by that last comment by Matus UHLAR, he's not one
of the dev team and at least on my personal record you appear as one of the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 04:38 ---
As Michael Parker wrote on 2004-06-11 09:15:
I've started working on this, and have most of it done. A few
questions/comments, if anyone sees a problem with
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 04:47 ---
Malte,
I took it wrong, I get hot when trying to help and no one wants to hear me or I
fail to make the point I was trying to make. That's why I spent some time
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 04:53 ---
It doesn't matter this was for 1.6 points or 1 million points, if someone
knows
about a test which is FPing I always thought it was right to put the
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
If I wanted to analyzed a message using either SA 2.6x or 3.x, what do I
use to encapsulate that message aside from
Mail::SpamAssassin::NoMailAudit? That is, how do I have to
On Thursday 30 September 2004 01:44 CET Justin Mason wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Author: mss
Date: Wed Sep 29 16:25:24 2004
New Revision: 47516
Modified:
spamassassin/trunk/MANIFEST
spamassassin/trunk/MANIFEST.SKIP
Log:
Sort MANIFEST* alphabetically (again? maybe we
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 07:30 ---
The HTML tests do not give an e-mail 1/3 of the required score to consider it
spam. 1.6 is 32% of 5.0, html tests which FP do not get scores like this.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 07:51 ---
We have all seen RBLs go down and list the world, say someone like XBL list
does this, now because of RFC's known FP, David's mail might score 4.69 now we
are
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 09:07 ---
Agreed with Bob. Fred - we've been partners in crime before g, so I think we
can speak frankly.
I agree that I've found the DESCRIPTIONS of policies at RFCI a
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 09:19 ---
I agree with you Mike Bell, no solid evidence yet, nothing to worry about. I
live in a world of what-ifs too much and need to drop this thinking when it
comes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Malte S. Stretz writes:
Why I sort that file now and then is because it makes it much easier to see
if a file is already in there or remove one which is gone. Keeping the
MANIFEST up-to-date is already a PITA and an unsorted file makes it even
On Thursday 30 September 2004 18:42 CET Justin Mason wrote:
Malte S. Stretz writes:
Why I sort that file now and then is because it makes it much easier to
see if a file is already in there or remove one which is gone. Keeping
the MANIFEST up-to-date is already a PITA and an unsorted file
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 09:55 ---
IIRC, we looked at this before -- the reason RFCI has a tendency to get a high
score, is because it's very good at hitting the spam other rules don't hit, so
the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3827
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 10:05 ---
I think I should update what the pros and cons of this listing
non-ICANN-registrar domain boundaries are, since there seems to be some
confusion.
When we
Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There was a post today about recording versions of software compatible with
SA3 (eg. MIMEDefang) in the Wiki. I went to look where such a thing might
go and see top-level items for Using SA and Using SA with Procmail when
the latter should be part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Malte S. Stretz writes:
On Thursday 30 September 2004 18:42 CET Justin Mason wrote:
Malte S. Stretz writes:
Why I sort that file now and then is because it makes it much easier to
see if a file is already in there or remove one which is
On Thursday 30 September 2004 18:50 CET Justin Mason wrote:
Bob Apthorpe writes:
That should gracefully handle both SA 2.x and 3.x, correct?
actually, it looks like we totally dropped the
Mail::SpamAssassin::NoMailAudit module entirely. When we were doing
this, I suggested we leave a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
actually, you're right on both; I just checked with perl -e in perl 5.8.4.
I must have been thinking of java instead of perl ;)
- --j.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851
Summary: Mails sent via SMTPAuth are recognized as spam
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: major
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3850
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
A very interesting paper at Toorcon -- the use of bioinformatics
techniques to perform black-box protocol reverse-engineering.
Again, this is likely to be useful for automated discovery of antispam
regexp rules... worth a read:
http://www.baselineresearch.net/PI/PI-Toorcon.pdf
--j.
Justin, I need more information about what you require or need for
the patches you are porting to 3.0. It seemed like you had some
dbg() statements that were essentially higher in priority/severity
than most others of that type.
I think the best solution would be to add an info() or notice()
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3703
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 13:51 ---
Subject: Re: clean up debugging
Justin, I need more information about what you require or need for
the patches you are porting to 3.0. It seemed like you had
count and current name, if there's a third column, that's the proposed
new facility group
164 bayes
40 dns
38 dcc
29 eval
19 locklocker
12 unlock locker
16 config
14 pyzor
14 SPF spf
12 SpamAssassinsomething
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
--- You are receiving
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Status|NEW
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3703
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 14:50 ---
Subject: Re: clean up debugging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
Do we want to require debug facilities to be
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 15:00 ---
Please attach the actual complete headers of the message, doing the minimum of
obfuscation that you need to preserve privacy.
In this case the rule is looking at
50 matches
Mail list logo
