On 2/1/2010 10:50 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 22:33 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
- If someone knows how to put these two rule sets in one file and
activate according to SA version, pls let me know... I'm stumped.
Preprocessing Options [1] in the SA Conf
you did a spamassassin -r?
On 01.02.10 06:07, Chris wrote:
In a way yes, I run a perl script that runs sa-learn and also reports
the spam to razor/pyzor/DCC all in one run.
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 17:49 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
now, how does this differ from running
Hi,
in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get rid of
spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible chances to miss some
mails for no really valid reason. I've seen that long list in [1], but that
doesn't say much of what should be avoided. For example, I
There's an extraneous linebreak or two in there:
#
SA 3.3.0
if (version = 3.003000)
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal | Networks Engineer
NHS Herefordshire Herefordshire Council | Deputy Chief Executive's Office |
I.C.T. Services Division
Thorn Office Centre, Rotherwas, Hereford, HR2 6JT
Tel:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:47:00 +
Kārlis Repsons karlis.reps...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get
rid of spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible
chances to miss some mails for no really valid reason. I've seen that
On 2/2/2010 1:03 PM, Randal, Phil wrote:
There's an extraneous linebreak or two in there:
#
SA 3.3.0
if (version = 3.003000)
SA 3.3.0 was missing a comment...
fixed
thx
What I have to do, when the following Message appears in my spamd.log?
info: rules: meta test HARD_URL has dependency 'HTTPS_IP_MISMATCH' with a zero
score.
It appears when I´ve installed the PhishTag.pm and PhishTag.cf.
I´ve searched for a resolution in the 50_score.cf but I could´nt find
Hi All,
we get a lot of Spam with some bad Words in the Display name of the sender.
With the blacklist_from command it is possible to filter by email-address,
but what is the right notation for filtering the display name of the sender?
can you please helb me?
Thanks a lot,
bye Daniel
--
View
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 05:13 -0800, Daniel R. wrote:
Hi All,
we get a lot of Spam with some bad Words in the Display name of the sender.
With the blacklist_from command it is possible to filter by email-address,
but what is the right notation for filtering the display name of the sender?
can
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:09:24 -0500
Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
There was a recent suggestion that 'personal name' text from the
From: header should be included in the text examined by 'body'
rules, which already includes the Subject: text. This sounds like
On 02.02.10 11:47, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get rid
of spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible chances to
miss some mails for no really valid reason.
_any_ spam filter can have false positives. If there was spam
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 15:08:01 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 02.02.10 11:47, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get rid
of spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible chances to
miss some mails for no really valid
On 02/02/2010 15:21, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
By the way, I feel interested in scores. For example, I've set up an automatic
sorting, which divides spam into three categories: gray, certain, heavy. I was
looking at that STATISTICS.txt and my first impression about boundaries was:
{4, 6.6, 8}, 4
tonjg wrote:
ever since I did a bayes learn on 200 spams and 200 hams a couple of days ago
I've had the following error appearing in my mail log:
'mimedefang-multiplexor[13951]: Slave 0 stderr: bayes: locker: safe_lock:
cannot create tmp lockfile
Bowie Bailey wrote:
...Check the
permissions on the /var/lib/spamassassin/bayes directory and contents.
Make sure the mimedefang user can read and write to the directory as
well as all of the files.
ok thanks for your response bowie. I looked at the
var/lib/spamassassin/bayes directory in
Since the sought rules have been updating for a while now, I took a look
at my stats to see how they were doing. They used to be one of my most
useful rules, but recently, they don't seem to be doing so good.
Here are the stats for the last month:
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Since the sought rules have been updating for a while now, I took a
look at my stats to see how they were doing. They used to be one
of my most useful rules, but recently, they don't seem to be doing
so good.
Here are the stats for the last month:
That looks like the
Kārlis Repsons wrote:
Hi,
in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get rid of
spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible chances to miss some
mails for no really valid reason. I've seen that long list in [1], but that
doesn't say much of what should be
Chris,
Thanks Mark, yes that did fix the problem though only after I changed
the order in which my add_header all statements were placed in my
local.cf. For instance, with 3.2.5 I had:
add_header all Status _YESNO_, score=_SCORE_ required=_REQD_
tests=_TESTSSCORES_ _TESTS_
If you are worried about losing good email add this rule to your ruleset:
header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('HOSTKARMA-lastexternal',
'127.0.0.1')
describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-WHITE
tflags RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W net nice
score RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5
This is
Adam Katz wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Since the sought rules have been updating for a while now, I took a
look at my stats to see how they were doing. They used to be one
of my most useful rules, but recently, they don't seem to be doing
so good.
Here are the stats for the last month:
On 02/02/2010 12:07 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
That is quite different from our masscheck stats. Today's results at
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100201/%2FJM_SOUGHT look like this:
SPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME
9.8564 0.0042 1.0000.940.01 T_JM_SOUGHT_3
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:53:35 Marc Perkel wrote:
If you are worried about losing good email add this rule to your ruleset:
header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('HOSTKARMA-lastexternal',
'127.0.0.1') describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-WHITE
tflags
Mark Martinec wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:53:35 Marc Perkel wrote:
If you are worried about losing good email add this rule to your ruleset:
header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('HOSTKARMA-lastexternal',
'127.0.0.1') describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W Sender listed in
Ideally everyone would pass these.
meta SPF_HELO_NOT_PASS !SPF_HELO_PASS
meta SPF_NOT_PASS !SPF_PASS
These will catch everything that does not have a valid SPF record,
including those for domains that have no SPF record.
I tested only the most recent 1,000 emails from my inbox,
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Ideally everyone would pass these.
meta SPF_HELO_NOT_PASS !SPF_HELO_PASS
meta SPF_NOT_PASS !SPF_PASS
These will catch everything that does not have a valid SPF record,
including those for domains that have no SPF record.
I tested only the most
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Ideally everyone would pass these.
and ideally we'd live in a world with no spam.
meta SPF_HELO_NOT_PASS !SPF_HELO_PASS
meta SPF_NOT_PASS !SPF_PASS
These will catch everything that does not have a valid SPF record,
including those for domains
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
(SPF_NOT_PASS alone should do it),
On 2/2/10 5:38 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
Sorry, but SPF is entirely about ham. We use SPF with vendors
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
If everyone uses SPF, all we need to block all spam is these rules
From: dar...@chaosreigns.com
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:38:20 -0500
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
Actually, SPF is about forgery and forgery is part
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 02/02, Marc Perkel wrote:
Why would you want to catch domains without SPF as SPF has no
relationship to detecting spam?
SPF is entirely about spam.
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction
I'm looking at the page and did a search and the word spam is
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 18:52 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
Chris,
Thanks Mark, yes that did fix the problem though only after I changed
the order in which my add_header all statements were placed in my
local.cf. For instance, with 3.2.5 I had:
add_header all Status _YESNO_,
On 01/02/2010 6:51 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The DNS entries for this channel lack version noting as well:
People shouldn't be just adding channels at whim. They should read the
documentation. If they try to use a channel that's not going to work
sa-update won't install
34 matches
Mail list logo
