http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3803
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-19 16:23 ---
Christian, we like the SpamAssassin Bar logo -- any chance of getting
that logo with the words Apache SpamAssassin instead of just SpamAssassin?
We should also
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3512
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev@spamassassin.apache.org
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3512
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4002
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-19 16:39 ---
++1 to this idea
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3997
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-19 16:46 ---
That code segment is not used in the URIDNSBL code
Ah, I must have assumed more sharing of code from Dns.pm than there is. Now I
see a comment in the
May be interesting:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/duplicates.cgi
I set a cron job up to update the list once a day.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2997
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3455
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2801
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2944
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
So here's a quick look at some DomainKeys rule freqs, from a quick
mass-check of the last ~10k ham and ~10k spam in my corpus (mass-check
--tail -j=8 --net --rules '^DK'):
OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME
19991 9998 99930.500 0.000.00 (all
Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it comes from a BSP host, report them!
http://www.bondedse in hellnder.org/complaint/
Not so fast. (Disclaimer: I work for IronPort.)
First, I looked at the message -- *none* of the Received header IPs are
listed in Bonded Sender (I checked both
John,
Can you send the output of these commands, run them on Luke.wa9als.com
(the system running SpamAssassin).
uname -a
perl -le 'use Net::DNS; print $Net::DNS::VERSION;'
Thanks.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3997
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-19 21:59 ---
Vance, what version of Net::DNS were you running when the log entry in
bug comment 23 happened?
perl -le 'use Net::DNS; print $Net::DNS::VERSION';
---
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3997
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SURBL FP on a particular|DNS answers get mixed up
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3997
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-19 22:13 ---
For SURBLs may I suggest using only A records and ignoring the TXT record, if
that's possible.
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Author: jm
Date: Wed Jan 19 22:03:05 2005
New Revision: 125722
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=125722
Log:
removed description-length limits entirely, and set new rule-name length
limit of 50 characters. Instead, implemented some sensible
I agree with Daniel that the new formatting isn't real nice; and in the
cited example I can't see any reason for the formatting change.
However I also strongly agree with Justin's reasoning and stated limits on
doing this.
I think I regard this as bugs in the new formatting code that can be
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4077
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4084
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4084
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:40:37AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
auto-mass-checks:
bug 2218: __SUBJ_ENCODED_VWc
bug 2243: MC_T_ALL_8BITS_rhU MC_T_CONTENT_TYPE_8BITS_rhU MC_T_DATE_8BITS_rhU
MC_T_FROM_8BITS_rhU MC_T_MESSAGEID_8BITS_rhU MC_T_MESSAGE_ID_8BITS_rhU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
ah, I didn't post examples of what the new formatting looks like --
here it is in report_safe 1:
The example I posted *was* report_safe 1, so the new formatting does
not look like that at all.
Now, I can't find any agreement in bugzilla that those
Happened to be poking around in the tree, found this:
Not in MANIFEST: masses/rule-qa/automc/config
Not in MANIFEST: masses/rule-qa/automc/NOTES
Not in MANIFEST: masses/rule-qa/automc/post-comments
Not in MANIFEST: masses/rule-qa/automc/ruleqa.cgi
Not in MANIFEST:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
ah, I didn't post examples of what the new formatting looks like --
here it is in report_safe 1:
The example I posted *was* report_safe 1, so the new formatting does
not look
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 12:43:52PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
OK -- I'm happy to go for:
- relax the description limit to allow 2-line descs
- keep 22-char limit on rulenames
- except for T_-prefix names
--lint should really be treating these limits as suggestions, not
errors.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:53:51PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
Sure. IIRC, 22 was somewhat arbitrary, but worked well given the
maximum length of lines and length of most descriptions.
As I recall, it was 22 for rule name, plus 50 for description == 72. Add in
another couple for spacing, the
On Thursday 20 January 2005 21:07 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
[...]
Not in MANIFEST: rules/25_dk.cf
Could this be renamed to 25_domainkeys.cf? When I saw that name first, I
thought it was the danish translation file...
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: How to Report Bugs Effectively
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4090
Summary: Can't build RPM on fedora core 3 x86_64
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4090
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-20 14:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=2612)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2612action=view)
disables libspamc.so build
I used this kluge patch to
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4090
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-20 15:03 ---
I don't think it is linking against a perl lib -- but I do think the perl's
build CFLAGS for .so object C files are wrong. it should be using -fPIC surely?
0.803 0.000.00 (all messages as %)
(rule __SUBJ_ENCODED_VWc = __SUBJ_ENCODED from bug 2218 comment 3)
6.114 7.5938 0.09720.987 0.801.00 __SUBJ_ENCODED_VWc
full freqs:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/ruleqa?rule=__SUBJ_ENCODED_VWcdate=20050120
bug 2218 cmt 1: ignored, lint
0.803 0.000.00 (all messages as %)
(rule MC_T_ALL_8BITS_rhU = T_ALL_8BITS from bug 2243 comment 13)
7.505 9.3256 0.10440.989 0.801.00 MC_T_ALL_8BITS_rhU
full freqs:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/ruleqa?rule=MC_T_ALL_8BITS_rhUdate=20050120
(rule MC_T_CONTENT_TYPE_8BITS_rhU
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4066
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-20 15:05 ---
# [automatically generated by automc: start]
# DONEMC 5: completed request from comment 5
freqs from /home/automc/corpus/html/DETAILS.new:
# ham results used:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2243
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-20 15:11 ---
note: the meta rules from comment 14 didn't get checked properly, because they
reused the meta subrules from comment 13 -- the automc scripts can't deal with
that
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2954
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2243
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-20 15:39 ---
here's a repost of comment 14, with the subrules included for mass-checking.
{{{
header T_ALL_8BITS ALL =~ /[\x80-\xff]{3,}/
header
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2243
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-20 15:40 ---
NEEDSMC
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4066
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
39 matches
Mail list logo
