I have some ideas for additions to the filtering rules, but I'd like to test
their usefulness before sugesting them to the list. Ideally, I'd get the
mass-checking and GA programs, run them against the archive of spam and
non-spam messages that the official scores file is generated from, and s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
./spamassassin < sample-spam.txt > spam.out show spamassassin working
correctly
spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out shows spamassassin not even
engaging.
I have in /usr/local/etc/procmailrc
:0fw
| spamc
Sample spam messages are not being
Should be on automatically, by default sending to the mail facility. You can
change the facility using -s, but you don't need to if mail is OK. It should
log lines like:
Feb 27 23:42:15 belphegore spamd[31921]: connection from localhost.localdomain [
127.0.0.1 ] at port 42245
Feb 27 23:42:1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can you describe how to turn on logging? Are you talking about -D or
- -s?
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:spamassassin-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>Craig R Hughes
>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:46 AM
Yeah, I think it probably might be better that way. I have to admit that I
haven't actually been monitoring sa-sightings at all. I've more or less been
relying on other people to notice anything particularly interesting there and
bring it to the attention of people on this list. Most of the
I'm leaning toward doing some extra sanity stuff in 2.11 or 2.2 -- just having
too much fun stirring up a lively discussion to have come out and said so
earlier :)
On the other hand though, I think it's possible that justin is a little *too*
conservative on letting the GA go crazy.
I think pr
Craig -
I've been holding off sending email to spamassassin-sightings list
because I'm not comfortable with any of the options I have to forward
mail there. The mailers I use to read my mail don't have a bounce or
resend option, but even if they did that would change some of the
headers that migh
Erik B. Berry wrote:
> > I was aware of the stuff you're pointing out below. This is basically caused by
> > using the new evolver to do the scoring. Previously, scores were limited to the
> > range 0.01-5, now they are unlimited, and allowed to go -ve. A side effect of
> > this is that rules
Arpi wrote:
> I doubt the non-spam folder is 100% spam-free.
> There are few (<100) hits of few rule which shouldn't be hit by non-spam
> at all. Maybe these mails should be manually verified...
I don't think it's fully spam-free either -- in fact there's one submitter of
nonspam in particular
I think the piece of the RATWARE test which is falling down is the YMR part.
Three letters in a row have a pretty good probability of cropping up randomly in
things like base64 coded docs. I bet if we take that one out the nonspam rate
for RATWARE will plummet.
C
Greg Ward wrote:
> Date: W
You didn't upgrade right -- you're still picking up an old .cf file.
C
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:20:51 -0400 (AST)
> From: Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Upgrading to spamproxyd in v2.1 ...
> Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 20
> I haven't installed 2.1, but I agree that the new scores are worrisome.
> With large scores like this (positive or negative), very small
> perturbations in input can cause wildly different results, which seems
> undesirable. I'd like to hear Justin's take on this, if he's not
> incommunicado.
I’m working through a problem with Sendmail /
Spamassassin / Forwarding / Virtual Domains.
I want to be able to turn on Spamassassin on a per (virtual)
user basis on my linux server.
The virtual domain users that resolve to a local user on
my linux machine are getting Spamassassin
Something that didn't get into the tar file? *raised eyebrow*
grep check_for * | sort
EvalTests.pm:sub check_for_bad_dialup_ips {
EvalTests.pm:sub check_for_bad_helo {
EvalTests.pm:sub check_for_base64_enc_text {
EvalTests.pm:sub check_for_content_type_just_html {
EvalTests.pm:sub check_for_fa
Arpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
> > >181 98 83 RATWARE
> >
> > That's interesting. I wonder if the RATWARE regex is too broad --
> > perhaps if it were toned down a bit, it would be better focussed on
> > spam. This ough
Ya, but looking at the code, this doesn't even appear to be related to the
proxyd itself:(
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Ian R. Justman wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> >
> > earth# /usr/bin/spamproxyd localhost:10025 localhost:10026
> > Failed to run A_FROM_IN_AUTO_WLIST S
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:42:44PM -0500, Nick Fisher wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I'm rusty on Perl and I'm working on Win32... Is there is a Win32 FAQ
> somewhere I'd love a link!
> The main problem I'm tackling now is that I get the following error when
> running spamassassin:
>
> "The getpwuid
Daniel Rogers wrote:
> LINE_OF_YELLING seems to have jumped from a score of 0.70 in SA 2.01 to a
> score of 5.442 in SA 2.1. This strikes me as rather a lot. Aren't there
> still people who still write their messages all in caps because they don't
> know any better?
Yeah, like lawyers, warrante
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> earth# /usr/bin/spamproxyd localhost:10025 localhost:10026
> Failed to run A_FROM_IN_AUTO_WLIST SpamAssassin test, skipping:
> (Can't locate object method "check_for_auto_whitelist" via package
>"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at
>/u
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
>>181 98 83 RATWARE
>
> That's interesting. I wonder if the RATWARE regex is too broad --
> perhaps if it were toned down a bit, it would be better focussed on
> spam. This ought to be a
Hi,
> On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
> >181 98 83 RATWARE
>
> That's interesting. I wonder if the RATWARE regex is too broad --
> perhaps if it were toned down a bit, it would be better focussed on
> spam. This ought to be a well-focused rule; how many peo
On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
>181 98 83 RATWARE
That's interesting. I wonder if the RATWARE regex is too broad --
perhaps if it were toned down a bit, it would be better focussed on
spam. This ought to be a well-focused rule; how many people use
spamware
earth# /usr/bin/spamproxyd localhost:10025 localhost:10026
Failed to run A_FROM_IN_AUTO_WLIST SpamAssassin test, skipping:
(Can't locate object method "check_for_auto_whitelist" via package
"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerM
On 27 February 2002, Nick Fisher said:
> Hi folks,
> I'm rusty on Perl and I'm working on Win32... Is there is a Win32 FAQ
> somewhere I'd love a link!
> The main problem I'm tackling now is that I get the following error when
> running spamassassin:
>
> "The getpwuid function is unimplemen
On 27 February 2002, Woodworth, Eric said:
> On 2 of my boxes, when I edit local.cf and change required_hits to 7, it
> doesn't take. When I check my spam reports it still tells me that the
> required hits is only 5.
Is this running as spamassassin or spamc/spamd? If the latter, what
user does
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 07:46:47PM +0100, Gunter Ohrner wrote:
| Am Wednesday, 27. February 2002 17:43 schrieb dman:
| > | pid=`pidof spamd` ?
| > 'pidof' is a Debian thing.
|
| Seems to be widely available under Linux:
So it is. I hadn't found it before on the RH box at school, and I'm
fairly
You can probably skip the "replace the daemons" part -- make install ought to do
that for you assuming you didn't move them to non-standard places. The install
will overwrite stuff in /usr/share/spamassassin/, but should leave /etc/mail
stuff untouched. So it'll replace your default .cf files
> SPAM: Hit! (4.9 points) BODY: URL of page called "remove"
> SPAM: Hit! (6.5 points) BODY: Link to a URL containing "remove"
No, not impressive. Those two scores would put a whole lot of honest opt-in
web "flyers" and likely many mailing lists in the spam bucket.
I'm strongly opposed to any
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:15:20PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> I meant single score, but yet, that message is pretty impressive. I assume it
> was not a false-positive :)
Uh, yeah, it was real spam. :)
I just found a 47.1 hits one, even though it had two -ve scores
(HTTP_USERNAME_USED and
Forgive me if this in the README, I didn’t see
anything on it, but what is the procedure for upgrading? Do I just do a perl Makefile.PL &&
make && make test && make install and then just replace the old
spamc and spamd daemons with the new ones?
What about my /etc/mail/local.cf will that
I meant single score, but yet, that message is pretty impressive. I assume it
was not a false-positive :)
C
Daniel Rogers wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:12:14 -0800
> From: Daniel Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PRO
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Yes, the large rule scores probably do make the system more sensitive to minor
> variations in input. However, they also apparently lead to more accurate
> scores. It is interesting that even running unconstrained over 50,000
>
And people make fun of me when I send HTML email. I don't think I'd ever seen a
133 line attachment to convey one line of text. Vive Microsoft.
C
Mike Loiterman wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:54:52 -0600
> From: Mike Loiterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtal
*craig struts around the room saying nahnananana told you so*
Just kidding. But really, I think it's correct that these scores are better. I
don't know if they're 20-30% better, but I'd say at least 10%.
C
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:57:54 -0500
> From: Rick Macdougal
Most of these have such low occurence rates in the corpus that they shouldn't be
allowed to vary their scores by the GA (or at least should be much more tightly
constrained). I'll take a look at adding such functionality to the code in
/masses.
Precicely because they're so infrequently seen t
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:22:45PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> I'm just a little concerned that some other OS out there doesn't use
> /var/run/spamd.pid but instead wants /usr/share/pids/spamd or
> c:\windows\makingthisup\pids\spamd instead. If you get your shell to do it
> (using $! or someth
Yes, the large rule scores probably do make the system more sensitive to minor
variations in input. However, they also apparently lead to more accurate
scores. It is interesting that even running unconstrained over 50,000
generations of scores, no score ended up larger than about 20, and that
Now how do I check that its actually working?
Hi,
Just my 2 cents
I receive on the order of 500 emails per day. I get aliased on support, dns,
webmaster and a few others, as well as having my email address archived for
all spammers to harvest since 1994. Plus various mailing lists etc...
Approx 100 of those a day are spam, some days m
I'm just a little concerned that some other OS out there doesn't use
/var/run/spamd.pid but instead wants /usr/share/pids/spamd or
c:\windows\makingthisup\pids\spamd instead. If you get your shell to do it
(using $! or something), then you get to tune things to how they're done on your
own partic
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:28:07PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> > Ummm... I'd be heavily inclined to set these spam scores to 0.01. It's not
> > that I don't trust the GA, it's just that if these are the outputs, they
> > aren't needed in the first place.
>
> That's n
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:29:49PM -0800, Paul Traina wrote:
> By the way, for extra bonus points, use code that looks like the following
> attachment.
> To do this right, you really want to lock the pidfile after opening so that
> multiple invocations don't occur.
I think that code might possibl
By the way, for extra bonus points, use code that looks like the following
attachment.
To do this right, you really want to lock the pidfile after opening so that
multiple invocations don't occur.
#include
#include
#include
#include
#define MAX_PID_SIZE 10
static int
pid_open (const char *
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> This isn't really a problem. It can actually be helpful too to allow
> the GA to do its own thing [...]
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tom Lipkis wrote:
> With large scores like this (positive or negative), very small
> perturbations in input can cause wildly
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Ummm... I'd be heavily inclined to set these spam scores to 0.01. It's not
> that I don't trust the GA, it's just that if these are the outputs, they
> aren't needed in the first place.
That's not necessarily the case. They might be needed to reduce false
positives. As
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 03:30:32AM -0700, Michael Moncur wrote:
> I might be wrong, but I think there's something seriously amiss with the new
> GA-evolved scores - they don't seem to have an upper boundary (many are 9-10 or
> so) or a lower (some are negative). Some examples that can't be right:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 03:49:38PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Stick it in bugzilla and I'll get to it sometime. Though isn't it probably
> easier (and more flexible) to get the pid in your shell, and have the shell
> write it to a file if you want to do that?
>
easier? no.
more flexible?
I haven't installed 2.1, but I agree that the new scores are worrisome.
With large scores like this (positive or negative), very small
perturbations in input can cause wildly different results, which seems
undesirable. I'd like to hear Justin's take on this, if he's not
incommunicado.
Tom
_
I was aware of the stuff you're pointing out below. This is basically caused by
using the new evolver to do the scoring. Previously, scores were limited to the
range 0.01-5, now they are unlimited, and allowed to go -ve. A side effect of
this is that rules which are really non-discriminators
In the corpus, LINE_OF_YELLING appears almost 9000 times in spam, and about 1300
times in nonspam. So I'm guessing that when it's in the nonspam, there are
other telltales that it's not really spam, and those rules have been assigned
-ve scores by the GA. There are only 562 false positives fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Wednesday, 27. February 2002 20:35 schrieb Daniel Rogers:
> LINE_OF_YELLING seems to have jumped from a score of 0.70 in SA 2.01 to a
> score of 5.442 in SA 2.1. This strikes me as rather a lot. Aren't there
> still people who still write their m
Stick it in bugzilla and I'll get to it sometime. Though isn't it probably
easier (and more flexible) to get the pid in your shell, and have the shell
write it to a file if you want to do that?
C
Paul Traina wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:30:14 -0800
> From: Paul Traina <[EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Wednesday, 27. February 2002 18:38 schrieb Timothy Demarest:
> >> So I tried adding Razor support to SpamAssassin which - unfortunately -
> >> razor check skipped: undefined Razor::Client
> There definitely seems to be a problem with Razor 1.20 and
Hi folks,
I'm rusty on Perl and I'm working on Win32... Is there is a Win32 FAQ
somewhere I'd love a link!
The main problem I'm tackling now is that I get the following error when
running spamassassin:
"The getpwuid function is unimplemented at lib/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line
647."
I'm gue
I've diffed the r1.37 and r1.38 rules/50_scores.cf and some of the changes
are so unbelievable that I've decided not to install the new scores file.
Here's just a sampling:
r1.37 r1.38
----
score 25FREEMEGS_U
LINE_OF_YELLING seems to have jumped from a score of 0.70 in SA 2.01 to a
score of 5.442 in SA 2.1. This strikes me as rather a lot. Aren't there
still people who still write their messages all in caps because they don't
know any better?
Also, any mail that uses a line of all caps as a title (s
Craig, do the pidfile, it's much more universal, and pidof is a linux-only
thing.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
I think we will try to keep maintaining 5.005 compatibility for a while longer
yet, I just don't have it installed myself to realize when I've broken something
:)
If you're running perl 5.0x for now I'd suggest changing that one rule to just
use [a-z] instead of [:lower:] -- If you're using SA
On 27 February 2002, Mark Roedel said:
> Posix character classes (a la [:lower:]) were apparently introduced in
> Perl at v5.6.0. Is there anything in particular that'd be lost by
> changing [:lower:] to [a-z] to maintain compatibility with the v5.0
> line? (Otherwise, this rule throws out an er
On 26 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes moaned:
> FYI, your code example is not even close to concurrency-safe. If one
Oh, it's an astonishing kludge written in haste and isn't meant to be
right.
What's more, it doesn't help :(
Further testing indicates that it's the previous state of the db that's
at fa
Actually, I don't think this is the case. You should be able to install them in
either order; SA will use Razor if it finds it at runtime, and not use it if it
doesn't find it (or you say -L).
> > ISTR hearing somewhere that SpamAssassin only enables Razor support if
> > Razor is there when yo
It's always best to release unstable code just before heading off on a long trip
:)
C
Timothy Demarest wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:48:43 -0800
> From: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Michael C. Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Re: pro
Yes Darian, read the last few messages in the mailing list archives -- looks
like a problem loading the Razor module in razor 1.20 -- going back to razor
1.19 is a temporary solution until I figure out how they changes things.
C
Darian Rafie wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:34:33 -0600
> Fr
On 2/27/02 14:24, "Craig R Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes -- I suspect this is a razor bug probably where the Razor module is not
> loading cleanly (ie not returning 1 or something like that) when loaded by SA.
> I'll take a closer look at it in a bit.
>
> C
>
Yeah, I reverted ba
You probably have ~/.spamassassin/*.cf in your user directories which contain a
required_hits setting which is overriding anything you set elsewhere. User
prefs files are read last.
C
Woodworth, Eric wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:28:55 -0500
> From: "Woodworth, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Wednesday, 27. February 2002 16:15 schrieben Sie:
> > I just installed SpamAssassin 2.0.1 - it does work very well and I'm
> > quite happy with it. However I get lots of asian spam mail (Don't ask me
> > why. :-( ) which does not get sufficient sco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Wednesday, 27. February 2002 17:43 schrieb dman:
> | pid=`pidof spamd` ?
> 'pidof' is a Debian thing.
Seems to be widely available under Linux:
UnseenUniversity:~ # cat /etc/SuSE-release
SuSE Linux 7.1 (i386)
VERSION = 7.1
UnseenUniversity:~ # w
No Nels, things have changed recently -- I'll send you a separate email
describing how to submit your stuff.
C
Nels Lindquist wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:10:27 -0700
> From: Nels Lindquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Where to send mass-check output?
>
I have 3 e-mail boxes all configured exactly the same with qmail,
qmail-scanner, and SA. The boxes work fine all things considered but I do
have 1 problem.
On 2 of my boxes, when I edit local.cf and change required_hits to 7, it
doesn't take. When I check my spam reports it still tells me that
Michael C. Hanson wrote:
> >> Reverting to razor-agent 1.19 works fine:
> >>
> >> SA 2.1 with razor 1.19:
>
> So, would the suggestion in the mean time be to go back to 1.19? I'm having
> the same exact issues with Razor 1.20
Yes -- I suspect this is a razor bug probably where the Razor module
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:21:30AM -0600, Mark Roedel wrote:
> Posix character classes (a la [:lower:]) were apparently introduced in
> Perl at v5.6.0. Is there anything in particular that'd be lost by
> changing [:lower:] to [a-z] to maintain compatibility with the v5.0
> line? (Otherwise, this
--On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:44 PM -0800 "Michael C. Hanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, would the suggestion in the mean time be to go back to 1.19? I'm
> having the same exact issues with Razor 1.20
That's working for me, and is probably the best until Vipul returns. Here
is a
I have downloaded the Spamass-milter tested it and it works, I then download
SpamAssassin 2.01 and installed it and tested it with the to txt files and
everything is installed correctly. I'm using sendmail 8.12.1 and I want a to
setup site-wide configuration for everyone. What must I do now to put
I have installed SpamAssassin 2.01 and Razor Agents 1.20 and Razor SDK
1.00. My problem is
[root]# spamassassin -t < sample-nonspam.txt > nonspam.out
razor check skipped: No such file or directory undefined Razor::Client
Interestingly the following works:
[root]# cat sample-spam.txt | spamass
Hmmm, I already sent this to the list but I dont see it in there so I guess
I'll try 1 more time. Sorry if this shows twice.
I have 3 e-mail boxes all configured exactly the same with qmail,
qmail-scanner, and SA. The boxes work fine all things considered but I do
have 1 problem.
On 2 of my b
Hi there.
I just ran mass-check on some spam and non-spam archives I've got,
and was wondering if the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address is still the one
to use.
Just want to make sure it goes someplace useful. :-)
Nels Lindquist <*>
Information Systems Manager
Morningstar Air Express Inc.
_
kill -TERM `ps ax | grep spamd | egrep -v grep | awk '{print $1}'`
works perectly on BSD. I'm happy.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:spamassassin-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Arpi
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> S
On 2/27/02 12:22, "Craig R Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about SA 2.01 with razor 1.20? AFAIK nothing changed on the SA side --
> they
> must have moved/changed something in Razor.
>
> C
>
> Timothy Demarest wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:38:16 -0800
>> From: Timothy Demare
I'm having problems with the Razor integration as well. I preformed the
check and my Razor install is ok.
As suggested earlier, removing the /.razor.1st file seems to fix it
sometimes, but other times it doesn't.
Using FreeBSD 4.4, SA 2.01 and Razor 1.20.
> -Original Message-
> From: [
How about SA 2.01 with razor 1.20? AFAIK nothing changed on the SA side -- they
must have moved/changed something in Razor.
C
Timothy Demarest wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:38:16 -0800
> From: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PRO
Yes, you lose non-US locales working. The change was actually in response to a
question from someone who receives Russian email where the subject line is
/^[^a-z]*$/ but contains no capital letters, ie for Russian locale, it's not
/^[^[:lower:]]$/ -- of course it didn't completely fix his prob
It'll work on Mandrake too, and a variety of other platforms. But on at least
Mandrake, pidof spamd won't work because the process name is not spamd. I think
it's pretty easy to set argv[0] though in perl, isn't it? I'll reread the docs
and see if we can't just fix that so the process name i
* Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-02-27T09:44-0800]:
[JAM 10 lines snipped]
>
> There definitely seems to be a problem with Razor 1.20 and SpmAssassin 2.1.
> I'm having the same problem under Solaris 8 with perl 5.6.1. Note that
> Razor::Client is found on my system:
I can confirm t
>> So I tried adding Razor support to SpamAssassin which - unfortunately -
>> did not work. Vipul's Razor by itself seems to be fully functional
>> (tested with razor-check) but if invoked by SpamAssassin I just get
>>
>> razor check skipped: undefined Razor::Client
>
> First, make sure that Per
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Latest SUBJ_ALL_CAPS rule in CVS
>
>
> diff -r1.32 -r1.33
> 47c47
> < header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[A-Z0-9\W]{6,}[^a
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 11:43, dman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:43:37PM +0100, Arpi wrote:
>
> | > Sorry, that should be
> | >
> | > More generic:
> | >
> | > pid=`ps ax | grep "spamd" | grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}'`
> |
> | pid=`pidof spamd` ?
>
> 'pidof' is a Debian thing.
>
[ja
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:43:37PM +0100, Arpi wrote:
| > Sorry, that should be
| >
| > More generic:
| >
| > pid=`ps ax | grep "spamd" | grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}'`
|
| pid=`pidof spamd` ?
'pidof' is a Debian thing.
-D
--
After you install Microsoft Windows XP, you have the option
Got it. F=A is the key to success
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:19 AM
> To: Mike Loiterman
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] forward alaises not working?
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
>
> > So my que
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
> When I run newalaises to rebuild the alais file I get errors for each of
> my alaises saying for example "root...cannont alaias no local names..."
> Why on earth would this be happening?! :(
> Using sendmail BTW
>
>
That's what I was thinking, as far as network checks. While they're often
useful, unless I have local copies I'm not going to try it. I'm using
spamd/spamc already. I was going to try to build an appliance-like device
out of the spamproxy & SA, so that there is little to no integration of SA
with
Just did a bit of digging and I found this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=344DC100.41C6%40bioch.ox.a
c.uk&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcannot%2Balias%2Bnon-local%2Bnames%26hl%3
Den%26selm%3D344DC100.41C6%2540bioch.ox.ac.uk%26rnum%3D1
Which if your unable to view indicates:
You have s
When I run newalaises to rebuild the alais file I get errors for each of
my alaises saying for example "root...cannont alaias no local names..."
Why on earth would this be happening?! :(
Using sendmail BTW
Ugh...its just one thing after another!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PRO
Read the README. It's overridable with the '-c' flag to spamassassin. I just
realized I forgot to add that same functionality to spamd -- sigh. Please could
you file something in bugzilla on this -- I'm trying to stay away from SA coding
for a few days to get some real work done. When I com
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:18:07AM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote:
> Just discovered that my aliases as defined in /etc/mail/aliases don't
> work anymore. Is this because I swithed my MDA from /usr/bin/mail to
> /usr/local/sbin/procmail or does this have something to do with
> SpamAssassin?
Aliases
It's in 2.1 -- the logging now prints score and threshold along with userid and
time taken for processing for every message passed through spamd.
C
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Just curious if anyone has started to work on some sort of logging
> through syslog that could be used to generate
On 27 February 2002, Mike Loiterman said:
> Just discovered that my aliases as defined in /etc/mail/aliases don't
> work anymore. Is this because I swithed my MDA from /usr/bin/mail to
> /usr/local/sbin/procmail or does this have something to do with
> SpamAssassin?
Depends on your MTA. I know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm having the exact same problem with Razor, I decided to download
and install it this morning before installing the 2.1 release of
SpamAssassin, but Razor::Client doesn't appear to exist. I used the
1.20 release of Razor, if you're curious. I trie
Hi,
> Sorry, that should be
>
> More generic:
>
> pid=`ps ax | grep "spamd" | grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}'`
pid=`pidof spamd` ?
A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team
--
Developer of MPlayer, the Movie Player for Linux - http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu
___
Spamas
Just discovered that my aliases as
defined in /etc/mail/aliases don’t work anymore. Is this because I swithed
my MDA from /usr/bin/mail to /usr/local/sbin/procmail
or does this have something to do with SpamAssassin?
Thanks
Sorry, that should be
More generic:
pid=`ps ax | grep "spamd" | grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}'`
if [ "X$pid" = "X" ]; then
echo "spamd is not running"
else
kill -TERM $pid
fi
Mike Grau wrote:
>
> Linux:
>
> echo -n "Stopping spam daemon. (spamd)"
> killproc spamd
> if [ $? -e
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
