NOTE: Score updates stalled.

For over a week, we've had too few mass-scan submissions for RuleQA to run properly. If you normally submit your logs, please confirm that your process is functional. If you would like to participate in the RuleQA process by submitting scan results, see the wiki for how to do so. --

ESPs spam updates

Hi, as everybody knows, spam from ESPs continues, some news about my efforts to contrast those spammers: - new version of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Esp has been released, you can find it at https://github.com/bigio/spamassassin-esp - my ESPs rbl is now public, rules to use it can be

OT: microsoft did not provide updates to commodore 64 basic rom

first one was perfect for stopping new software to commodore 64, that sated i believe the 640K come from commodore 128 with 512k ram expanded so i have 640k in total out of 1024k possible :) but in 2021 they still do not care much

Re: Frequency of SUSP_NTLD updates

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) John Hardin wrote: > I realize this isn't really a welcome solution per the original note > but until the legitimate use of those TLDs grows the rules punishing > them do have value. There ought to be delist version of enlist_addrlist though.

Re: Frequency of SUSP_NTLD updates

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, @lbutlr wrote: On 30 Jun 2020, at 09:31, RW wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:30:17 + Roald Stolte wrote: These mails were all using TLDs such as .site and .online and were getting marked because of it. Are others seeing a decrease in spam from .site and .online? All I

Re: Frequency of SUSP_NTLD updates

On 30 Jun 2020, at 09:31, RW wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:30:17 + > Roald Stolte wrote: > > >> These mails were all using TLDs such as .site and .online and were >> getting marked because of it. Are others seeing a decrease in spam from .site and .online? All I see from these TLD is

Re: Frequency of SUSP_NTLD updates

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:30:17 + Roald Stolte wrote: > These mails were all using TLDs such as .site and .online and were > getting marked because of it. > > > Rules triggering included FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD and > FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP and PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD, which instantly bumped > the

Frequency of SUSP_NTLD updates

Hello, I've been getting reports from colleagues that various e-mails were getting marked as spam by SA. We're running SA 3.4.2 (latest update on debian apt). These mails were all using TLDs such as .site and .online and were getting marked because of it. Rules triggering included

Re: New Spamhaus zone and updates to the plugin

> Am 03.05.20 um 13:24 schrieb Damian: It might be worth posting on the postfix users list about the benefits of a dqs account; I use it with postscreen and smtpd to good effect. >>> >>> I thought about that, but there are some issues I think. >> >> There is another generic benefit: It

Re: New Spamhaus zone and updates to the plugin

>> It might be worth posting on the postfix users list about the benefits >> of a dqs account; I use it with postscreen and smtpd to good effect. > > I thought about that, but there are some issues I think. There is another generic benefit: It might be the only alternative to access ZEN when

Re: New Spamhaus zone and updates to the plugin

On 30/04/20 12:07, Dominic Raferd wrote: Thanks Riccardo this is a great tool and I have updated our SA plugin as advised. I think it is a pity we small-scale users can't benefit from the new HBL :( what was the logic here? I don't know anything about the decisions behind the usage policy

Re: New Spamhaus zone and updates to the plugin

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 09:51, Riccardo Alfieri wrote: > Hello, > > I'm happy to announce to the SpamAssassin community that Spamhaus has > released an updated version of our plugin that solves minor issues and, > more importantly, adds support for a new dataset we just released. > > The new zone

Re: New Spamhaus zone and updates to the plugin

Riccardo, Is it also available to Spamhaus Rsync Datafeed customers? On 2020-04-30 10:50, Riccardo Alfieri wrote: Hello, I'm happy to announce to the SpamAssassin community that Spamhaus has released an updated version of our plugin that solves minor issues and, more importantly, adds

New Spamhaus zone and updates to the plugin

Hello, I'm happy to announce to the SpamAssassin community that Spamhaus has released an updated version of our plugin that solves minor issues and, more importantly, adds support for a new dataset we just released. The new zone is called HBL (Hash BlockList) and deals with three different

Re: sa-update when were last updates made?

thanks for your info, sincerely, most helpful. I will look into my setup over the next week or so, as its clearly a bit weird! a few typos in my message, which I corrected - my old eyes are in need of an update too -- Sent from:

Re: sa-update when were last updates made?

On 24 Jan 2019, at 8:44, LegendGamesMaster wrote: Reindl - thanks. Note that anything you get from H. Reindl in reply to messages on this mailing list is not actually posted to the mailing list. just checked and yes, i'm updated. however... i'm confused as to what rules are being used in

Re: sa-update when were last updates made?

On 24.01.19 06:44, LegendGamesMaster wrote: The files in /var/lib/spamassassin/3.0014000/ are clearly todays update, except for a directory sought_rules_yerp_org which is 18/10/2018 afaik this project is unfortunately dead I note that I have a load of files in /usr/share/spamassassin that

Re: sa-update when were last updates made?

Reindl - thanks. just checked and yes, i'm updated. however... i'm confused as to what rules are being used in preference... The files in /var/lib/spamassassin/3.0014000/ are clearly todays update, except for a directory sought_rules_yerp_org which is 18/10/2018 I note that I have a load of

sa-update when were last updates made?

Hi Folks newbie here. centos / plesk, postfix, latest SA, run sa-update regularly My files are showing October 2018 as last update date - this seems a bit old to me. can anyone confirm the dates of the last updates? If im not getting them, I can delve deeper thanks in advance. Andy

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

d my > > iRedMail/amavis server. This method has shown to keep my Bayes scores > > very accurate. > > > > Hope someone finds this information helpful. > > > > Dave > > > > > > On 01/20/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > >> O

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

ion helpful. > > Dave > > > On 01/20/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: >> On 20-01-17 19:46, David Jones wrote: >>>> From: Kevin Golding >>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:59 AM >>>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >>>> Subje

Re: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

ubject: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17 On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill Keenan wrote: What is the fix needed so /usr/bin/sa-update starts getting updates? I too have not received an update from updates.spamassassin.org <http://updates.spamassassin.org/> since 1-

Re: sa-update ruleset updates enabled again

you in the background so just do some Googling based on your "glue." It shouldn't be run more frequently than about 4 hours since there are only 2 updates a day currently around 3 AM UTC and 9 AM UTC. https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RuleUpdates On 11/19/17, David Jones <

Re: sa-update ruleset updates enabled again

On 11/18/2017 09:37 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Benny Pedersen wrote: David Jones skrev den 2017-11-18 16:26:  Heads up.  DNS updates for sa-update have been enabled again. The next  rules promotion will happen in about 11 hours around 2:30 AM UTC. heads up :=) <host

Re: sa-update ruleset updates enabled again

On 11/18/2017 09:46 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: David Jones skrev den 2017-11-18 16:26: Heads up.  DNS updates for sa-update have been enabled again. The next rules promotion will happen in about 11 hours around 2:30 AM UTC. may i ask why you tld block me ? sorry for asking here, private mails

Re: sa-update ruleset updates enabled again

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Benny Pedersen wrote: David Jones skrev den 2017-11-18 16:26: Heads up.  DNS updates for sa-update have been enabled again. The next rules promotion will happen in about 11 hours around 2:30 AM UTC. heads up :=) <hostmas...@ena.com>: delivery via smtp.ena.net[96

Re: sa-update ruleset updates enabled again

David Jones skrev den 2017-11-18 16:26: Heads up.  DNS updates for sa-update have been enabled again. The next rules promotion will happen in about 11 hours around 2:30 AM UTC. heads up :=) <hostmas...@ena.com>: delivery via smtp.ena.net[96.5.1.4]:25: host smtp.ena.net[96.5.1.4] sai

Re: sa-update ruleset updates enabled again

David Jones skrev den 2017-11-18 16:26: Heads up.  DNS updates for sa-update have been enabled again. The next rules promotion will happen in about 11 hours around 2:30 AM UTC. may i ask why you tld block me ? sorry for asking here, private mails does not work

sa-update ruleset updates enabled again

Heads up.  DNS updates for sa-update have been enabled again. The next rules promotion will happen in about 11 hours around 2:30 AM UTC. -- David Jones

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

On 11/13/2017 02:33 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: On 28-10-17 15:20, David Jones wrote: On 10/27/2017 03:02 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote: Please provide feedback in the next 48 hours -- positive or negative so I know we are good to enable DNS updates again on Sunday. After installing

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

On 28-10-17 15:20, David Jones wrote: > On 10/27/2017 03:02 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Please provide feedback in the next 48 hours -- positive or negative so >>>> I know we are good to enable DNS updates again on Sunday. &

Re: Rule updates?

On 11/6/2017 11:29 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote: I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going to resume starting about a week ago.  I haven't heard anything since and still have not seen any updates.  What is the current status? Its a work in progress

Re: Rule updates?

> I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going > to resume starting about a week ago.  I haven't heard anything since and > still have not seen any updates.  What is the current status? Its a work in progress, there was some feedback and some changes

Rule updates?

I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going to resume starting about a week ago.  I haven't heard anything since and still have not seen any updates.  What is the current status? -- Bowie

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

On 10/27/2017 03:02 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote: Please provide feedback in the next 48 hours -- positive or negative so I know we are good to enable DNS updates again on Sunday. After installing these rules, I'm seeing one warning in my log during spamassassin reload: Oct 27 09

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

>> >> Please provide feedback in the next 48 hours -- positive or negative so >> I know we are good to enable DNS updates again on Sunday. >> > > After installing these rules, I'm seeing one warning in my log during > spamassassin reload: > > Oct 27 09:48:24

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

; wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1813258.tar.gz > wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1813258.tar.gz.sha1 > wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1813258.tar.gz.asc > sa-update -v --install 1813258.tar.gz > > restart spamd, MailScanner, amavisd, mimedefang, etc. > > Please provide feedba

Re: Ruleset updates via nightly masscheck status

-v --install 1813258.tar.gz restart spamd, MailScanner, amavisd, mimedefang, etc. Please provide feedback in the next 48 hours -- positive or negative so I know we are good to enable DNS updates again on Sunday. I would like to enable DNS updates on Saturday evening (US time) so the sa-updates

Re: Any updates since 1799552?

On 10/23/2017 05:03 AM, sa_l...@dunquino.com wrote: Hi, I noticed that my channels updates cf file hasn't changed for a month so I ran sa-update with --debug: Oct 23 09:58:35.372 [4969] dbg: channel: attempting channel updates.spamassassin.org Oct 23 09:58:35.372 [4969] dbg: channel: using

Any updates since 1799552?

Hi, I noticed that my channels updates cf file hasn't changed for a month so I ran sa-update with --debug: Oct 23 09:58:35.372 [4969] dbg: channel: attempting channel updates.spamassassin.org Oct 23 09:58:35.372 [4969] dbg: channel: using existing directory /var/opt/spamassassin/3.004001

Re: Rule updates working again

On 06/08/2017 05:46 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: it worked exactly one time Am 06.06.2017 um 17:29 schrieb David Jones: FYI We have the rule build scripts working for updates via sa-update. Default rule scores are also updating thanks to our masscheckers out there. https://wiki.apache.org

Rule updates working again

FYI We have the rule build scripts working for updates via sa-update. Default rule scores are also updating thanks to our masscheckers out there. https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck -- Dave

Re: Any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again?

On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 21:52 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 5/2/2017 8:52 PM, Chris wrote: > > > > Since it's now been a month and a half is there any ETA as to when > > rule > > updates will begin again? I've been showing the same channel > > ve

Re: Any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again?

On 5/2/2017 8:52 PM, Chris wrote: Since it's now been a month and a half is there any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again? I've been showing the same channel version since 16 March as shown in the attached. As a volunteer project, there is no ETA. I can tell you my goal is to get

Any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again?

Back on the 15th of March this was posted to the list: "I posted this to the dev and ruleqa mailing lists, then realized that it is also relevant to people on this list who run rule updates. We are in the process of migrating off old machines to a new one for the masschecks and rule u

Re: sa-update - no updates for 3 weeks?

On 4/6/2017 10:18 AM, James Hsieh wrote: Thanks very much for everyone's quick responses (and sanity checks).:) I love this .cf file, Kevin. A more advanced and sophisticated version of the one I've been accumulating for a few years! Glad it helped and I'm working on the resolution to the

Re: sa-update - no updates for 3 weeks?

gt; wrote: > > On 4/6/2017 9:50 AM, James Hsieh wrote: >> SpamAssassin 3.4.1, Solaris 10 >> >> I've been investigating an increase in spam leakage through my spamassassin >> setup, and noticed that I don't appear to have gotten any new rules updates >> from s

Re: sa-update - no updates for 3 weeks?

On 4/6/2017 9:50 AM, James Hsieh wrote: SpamAssassin 3.4.1, Solaris 10 I've been investigating an increase in spam leakage through my spamassassin setup, and noticed that I don't appear to have gotten any new rules updates from sa-update in several weeks. I have a cron job that runs every

Re: sa-update - no updates for 3 weeks?

Hi James Just to let you know it isn't just you. Tried this this morning with same result. Retried just now, where it seems to have found an update (1786640), but still doesn't update, exiting with error code 1 (no updates available), as below Apr 6 15:05:52.617 [22842] dbg: channel

Re: sa-update - no updates for 3 weeks?

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:50:14 -0400 James Hsieh wrote: > Hi, > > SpamAssassin 3.4.1, Solaris 10 > > I've been investigating an increase in spam leakage through my > spamassassin setup, and noticed that I don't appear to have gotten > any new rules updates from sa-up

sa-update - no updates for 3 weeks?

Hi, SpamAssassin 3.4.1, Solaris 10 I've been investigating an increase in spam leakage through my spamassassin setup, and noticed that I don't appear to have gotten any new rules updates from sa-update in several weeks. I have a cron job that runs every night that reports spam statistics

Mass check and rule updates - Down for machine migration

I posted this to the dev and ruleqa mailing lists, then realized that it is also relevant to people on this list who run rule updates. We are in the process of migrating off old machines to a new one for the masschecks and rule update processing. Unfortunately the required shutdown of the old

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>> I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most.  I would >> have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) I set this up and it was much easier than I had thought.  The wiki documentation was helpful but very confusing at first.  Start with:

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Kevin Golding wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:08:39 -, Jari Fredriksson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: > Collecting spam after RBL filtering is much less helpful to masscheck. > Ideally your

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Kevin Golding wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 -, David Jones wrote: I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most. I would have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) then create a honeypot email address to

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kevin Golding kirjoitti 21.1.2017 21:22: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:08:39 -, Jari Fredriksson wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: >> >>> Collecting spam after

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:08:39 -, Jari Fredriksson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: Collecting spam after RBL filtering is much less helpful to masscheck. Ideally your spam corpus is from a totally unfiltered feed.

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: > Collecting spam after RBL filtering is much less helpful to masscheck. > Ideally your spam corpus is from a totally unfiltered feed. > > However, even if it is filtered and small, it helps, *especially* if >

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 + >David Jones wrote: >> I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most.  I would >> have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) >I hope it doesn't actually say that anywhere. IMO the corpora should be >dominated by the spam

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 + David Jones wrote: > I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most. I would > have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) I hope it doesn't actually say that anywhere. IMO the corpora should be dominated by the spam that's

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 -, David Jones wrote: I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most. I would have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) then create a honeypot email address to attract spam if I didn't have established

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 01/21/2017 05:35 PM, David Jones wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:02:09 -, Tom Hendrikx wrote: As John has said, diversity makes the rules more accurate for more people. Also many hands make light work. With more people involved there's not such a requirement to

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:02:09 -, Tom Hendrikx wrote: >As John has said, diversity makes the rules more accurate for more people. >Also many hands make light work. With more people involved there's not >such a requirement to contribute thousands of messages per person. I

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:02:09 -, Tom Hendrikx wrote: I think I can say the same about my platform, but since this issue keeps popping up I just applied for an account just to find out if my contribution could help. I can't speculate so I'm just gonna try if it helps :)

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Bill Keenan wrote: I am interested/willing to be part of mass check. However, I use spam assassin via amavisd-new. On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, David Jones wrote: I would like to help with the nightly masscheck but I don't have the resources to manually check ham and spam.

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 20-01-17 19:46, David Jones wrote: >> From: Kevin Golding <k...@caomhin.org> >> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:59 AM >> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17 > >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill K

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>From: Kevin Golding <k...@caomhin.org> >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:59 AM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17   >On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill Keenan  ><developerli...@wjkeenan.org> wrote: >> W

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

20, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Kevin Golding <k...@caomhin.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill Keenan <developerli...@wjkeenan.org> > wrote: > >> What is the fix needed so /usr/bin/sa-update starts getting updates? I too >> have not received an u

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill Keenan <developerli...@wjkeenan.org> wrote: What is the fix needed so /usr/bin/sa-update starts getting updates? I too have not received an update from updates.spamassassin.org <http://updates.spamassassin.org/> since 1-Jan-1

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

What is the fix needed so /usr/bin/sa-update starts getting updates? I too have not received an update from updates.spamassassin.org <http://updates.spamassassin.org/> since 1-Jan-17. Besides updates.spamassassin.org <http://updates.spamassassin.org/>, what other rule sets are c

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

gt; >>> seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two > >>> weeks but I guess it's possible. > >> > >> It's been noted and I think i have the root issue tracked down. Some of > >> the checkers are running the wrong SVN checkou

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 01/17/2017 09:14 PM, Dave Warren wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2017, at 20:02, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two weeks but I guess

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017, at 20:02, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: > > The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output > > seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two > > weeks but I guess it's pos

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sun, 2017-01-15 at 23:02 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: > > > > The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron > > output > > seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for > > two &g

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two weeks but I guess it's possible. It's been noted and I think i have the root issue tracked down. Some

No rule updates since 1/1/17

The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two weeks but I guess it's possible. -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C 31.11972; -97.90167 (Elev. 1092 ft) 20:15:36 up 4:59, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.50

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not everything I could. That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam. In particular it may lead to botnet related tests being seriously

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On 3.6.2016 19.21, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300 >> Jari Fredriksson wrote: >>> >>> If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it >>> for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not >>> everything

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300 Jari Fredriksson wrote: If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not everything I could. That's probably not a good idea if it leads to

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300 Jari Fredriksson wrote: > > If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it > for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not > everything I could. That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam. In

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

3. kesäkuuta 2016 16.46.59 GMT+03:00 "Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge" kirjoitti: >On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote: > >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: >> >>> 20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: >>>

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160602 20160602: Spam: 589792, Ham: 138721 We've been hovering *just* below the ham threshold for a

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160602 20160602: Spam: 589792, Ham: 138721 We've been hovering *just* below the ham threshold for a week or so now. Anyone who can contribute

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-02-29

Am 29.02.2016 um 17:57 schrieb John Hardin: On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160228: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160228 20160228: Spam: 108401, Ham: 191807 Masscheck is spam-starved again, rules updates

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-02-29

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160228: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160228 20160228: Spam: 108401, Ham: 191807 Masscheck is spam-starved again, rules updates will be spotty or nonexistent this week. -- John

Re: Rules Updates

On Jan 27, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Björn Keil wrote: > I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1, installed via the Ubuntu 10.04 An ancient version of SA on a 6 year-old OS? -- A sadder and a wiser man he rose the morrow morn.

Re: Rules Updates

is the LOCAL_STATE_DIR, /usr/share/spamassassin is the LOCAL_RULES_DIR. With this mechanism I am at a loss which rules are actually being used right now, which should be used and how the SpamAssassin is supposed to know which rules are outdated when the original rules go into one directory and updates

Rules Updates

is the LOCAL_RULES_DIR. With this mechanism I am at a loss which rules are actually being used right now, which should be used and how the SpamAssassin is supposed to know which rules are outdated when the original rules go into one directory and updates into another. Thanks for help, Björn

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-23

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160122: Spam: 156567, Ham: 200399 Looks like we may get an update... -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-21

On 01/21/2016 05:42 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160120: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160120 20160120: Spam: 131777, Ham: 142710 Oooo, so close! My spam levels are extremely low so I've

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-21

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160120: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160120 20160120: Spam: 131777, Ham: 142710 Oooo, so close! -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-20

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160119: Spam: 123699, Ham: 199560 ...almost there... -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507

Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?

Alex skrev den 2016-01-16 19:38: I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? more masscheckers wont hurt anyone This is a significant part of what makes spamassassin so great. Is there no one else

Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?

Am 16.01.2016 um 19:38 schrieb Alex: I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? i noticed that long ago - look in the list archives also for the responses This is a significant part of what makes

Call-to-action: no sa-updates?

Hi, I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? This is a significant part of what makes spamassassin so great. Is there no one else that has a regular spam/ham stream that can contribute?

Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?

Hi, >> I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three >> weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? > > i noticed that long ago - look in the list archives also for the responses Yes, I recall, but still nothing is being done to make

Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Alex wrote: As John said, masschecks is being starved. How far off is it from being sufficiently populated? You can always visit the masscheck home page and hover over the stats to see the latest submitted corpus size. Last run was 102k spam, 203k ham. The minimum to

Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Alex wrote: I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? The masscheck spam corpus has been starved. Possibly due to the holidays, though I can't say for sure

Recent SA updates and Milter rejects

Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own reports to Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes other than downloading new rules. Why is this happening? Everything has been working for literally years. spam.spamcop.net is whitelisted in both the system

Re: Recent SA updates and Milter rejects

On 4/24/2015 1:10 PM, Forrest wrote: Since last night, suddenly Spamassassin/Milter is rejecting my own reports to Spamcop. Out of nowhere and with no other changes other than downloading new rules. Why is this happening? Everything has been working for literally years.

  1   2   3   4   5   >