https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6143
--- Comment #30 from Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com 2009-07-08 00:49:31
PST ---
The string appears to get munged somewhere in sub extract_hints where all the
patterns are written out to a temporary file then executed as perl
HTTP get: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/1-days-ago?xml=1
HTTP get: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/2-days-ago?xml=1
HTTP get: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/3-days-ago?xml=1
Bad performing rules, from the past 3 night's mass-checks.
(Note: 'net' rules will be listed as 'no hits' unless you set
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6143
--- Comment #31 from Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com 2009-07-08 01:49:03
PST ---
perl does not seem to be doing what the code expects it to be doing.
perl -c -Mre=debug -e 'use bytes; m/foo\x{00}ba\x{7f}r/'
has the output
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 05:39:56 Warren Togami wrote:
NOTE: the optional Encode::Detect module is not installed.
If you plan to use the normalize_charset config setting to detect
charsets and convert them into Unicode, you will need to install
this module.
What is the performance
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6143
--- Comment #32 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-07-08 02:16:51 PST ---
a lot of questions ;) Thanks for looking into this, Sidney.
(In reply to comment #29)
It appears that BodyRuleBaseExtractor.pm stops when it hits
it allows body rules to be written in UTF8, but still match text
written in other charsets.
This is useful if you want to match the *text*, rather than the actual
*bytes* that are being spammed. in my opinion though, spammer
patterns can be matched as strings of bytes, since that's how the
There will be a rules tarball alongside the main code tarball. See
what's on http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/ for 3.3.0-alpha1;
there's one there.
That can be installed using sa-update --install /tmp/709395.tar.gz.
Does that work?
--j.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 22:07, Warren
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6150
Justin Mason j...@jmason.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 11:29:24 Justin Mason wrote:
There will be a rules tarball alongside the main code tarball. See
what's on http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/ for 3.3.0-alpha1;
there's one there.
That can be installed using sa-update --install /tmp/709395.tar.gz.
Does that work?
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6150
--- Comment #4 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-07-08 03:23:42
PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
we need a better error message though. Is the real spamd stderr output
being hidden by the init script, or does it
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:00, Mark Martinecmark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 11:29:24 Justin Mason wrote:
There will be a rules tarball alongside the main code tarball. See
what's on http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/ for 3.3.0-alpha1;
there's one there.
That can be
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6151
Summary: Sign the distro rules with the right signing key
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.3.0
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
thanks Warren -- looking good:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20090707-r791754-n/FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D/detail#all
--j.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 03:53, Warren Togamiwtog...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I am starting my server to do nightly_mass_checks again. Two users on my
server (including me) are
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6143
--- Comment #33 from Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com 2009-07-08 05:37:40
PST ---
I think the main problem here is that RET() is being used on a
single-character
string
Yes, it boils down to that.
iirc the min length for
Y 9 /home/warren/mail/AA-GOOD.6313814 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28
It has been two years since I've used these tools. How do I figure out
which message in the mbox this is referring to?
Warren
On 07/08/2009 06:55 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
thanks Warren -- looking good:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5922
--- Comment #20 from Dave Pifke d...@pifke.org 2009-07-08 12:34:39 PST ---
To add my experience for what it's worth, I just noticed spam from eFax on a
honeypot address. That it triggered USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST inspired me to come
pipe that line to masses/mboxget and it'll spit out the message
--j.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 18:39, Warren Togamiwtog...@redhat.com wrote:
Y 9 /home/warren/mail/AA-GOOD.6313814 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28
It has been two years since I've used these tools. How do I figure out
which message in the
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6143
Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #4476|0 |1
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5922
--- Comment #21 from Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com 2009-07-08 14:56:19
PST ---
I'll take that last comment as a ping and update my status on this. I have not
found a way to contact any human being at J2 and there was no
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5922
--- Comment #22 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-07-08 15:37:37 PST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
I have no compunction about removing efax.com from the default whitelist and
letting people who subscribe to them deal with it
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5922
--- Comment #23 from Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com 2009-07-08 16:03:13
PST ---
Ok, how many PMC votes do we need to remove efax.com from the default
whitelist?
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6143
--- Comment #35 from Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com 2009-07-08 16:27:52
PST ---
I see that sa-compile has a sub named fixup_re which does the right thing to
turn /\x{00}/ into a one-character string.
I guess that
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6100
--- Comment #21 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-07-08 17:32:53
PST ---
Still missing are some true network-based ADSP tests,
for which I need to add few additional RR in the
sa-test.spamassassin.org DNS zone file.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5922
--- Comment #24 from Matt Kettler mkettler...@verizon.net 2009-07-08
19:29:28 PST ---
+1
Generally speaking, I'm not in favor of default whitelists at all.
I feel they should be reserved for when there is a truly significant
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5922
--- Comment #25 from Matt Kettler mkettler...@verizon.net 2009-07-08
19:37:54 PST ---
side note: I now tally 2 of the required 3 +1 votes. (Sydney seems to imply a
+0 vote, but has not officially cast one yet)
Should we tag this
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5922
--- Comment #26 from Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com 2009-07-08 20:21:27
PST ---
Oh, no I am a strong +1 for it now that I have exhausted what I am willing to
do to try to give them a chance with no response from them. I was
26 matches
Mail list logo
