Under RedHat 7.2, make test breaks for v2.1. Anyone else see this?
[rlm@raggy Mail-SpamAssassin-2.1]$ make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib
-I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/i386-linux -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0 -e 'use
Test::Harness qw(&runtests $verbose); $verbose=0; runtests @ARG
I got 179 Nigerian scam message bodies (though not headers) from
http://www.quatloos.com/cm-niger/cm-niger.htm, and used them to test out how
SA handles them. Testing with the default 2.2 setup (taken from CVS today),
72 out of 179 is correctly tagged as spam. Overriding some of the weird
ne
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 10:08, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
>>you're probably already using procmail for spamassassin,
>>so add in the rule (it's in the procmail man page) that
>>unduplicates your messages based on message-id.
>>
>
>That doesn't help people he sends to who migh
The following email was marked as spam, and had the X-Spam-Flag and
X-Spam-Status headers set properly, but the result lines starting with
"SPAM:" weren't added to the body.
Received: (qmail 5437 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 00:41:22 -
Received: from unknown (HELO sarah.freejokes4u.com)
On 2/28/02 5:28 PM, "Scott Walde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it make sense to take a look at the ratio of spam to non-spam for
> each given rule, and to constrain the score to either -ve or +ve depending
> on which way the ratio leaned? This way, "monsterhut" may wander
> randomly, but i
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Shields wrote:
> Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this is that rules which are really non-discriminators end up sometimes getting
> > odd-looking scores. For example, CYBER_FIRE_POWER is just not likely to really
> > be worth -4.020 if looked at in isola
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:27:21PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> While modifying the GA, I noticed that I'd run the scoring for 2.1 with a
> population of only 20 -- normally I run with about 100 but had lowered it or
> speed while doing some testing. The small population size almost certainly
> h
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:35:27PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Indeed -- so there is no AWL being created. Could you add a "-D" and send
> the top of spamd.log?
>
/usr/local/bin/softlimit -a 1000 /usr/bin/spamd -F 1 -L -x -u spamc -D
debug: ignore: test message to precompile patterns and
On 2/28/02 4:18 PM, "Jason Haar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope. There is no autowhitelist. Unless you tell me otherwise :-)
>>> exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -a 1000 /usr/bin/spamd -F 1 -L -x \
>>> -u spamc > /var/log/spamd.log 2>&1
>
> As you can see - no "-a" option.
Indeed -- so ther
While modifying the GA, I noticed that I'd run the scoring for 2.1 with a
population of only 20 -- normally I run with about 100 but had lowered it or
speed while doing some testing. The small population size almost certainly
had a major negative effect on the scores produced. I'm rerunning now
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:02:38PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> How big is your autowhitelist DB getting? That's the only thing I can
> imagine that could be responsible. Particularly since you're forcing the
> userid to spamc...
Nope. There is no autowhitelist. Unless you tell me otherwise :-)
Hi Bart,
>When I installed SA on my ISP's mailserver, I also set up a cron job to
>mail me a condensed report of the spams it had diverted. I had to put a
>special rule in .procmailrc to avoid invoking SA on the spam report, as
>I found that a large number of SA's rules will match their own nam
I tried setting up SpamAssassin with Kmail as the README says, and it worked
just fine. However, with the KDE 2.2.2 version of Kmail, Kmail becomes
unresponsive while piping through SpamAssassin, which can take a noticeable
amount of time if you're checking with multiple BlackHole lists, and i
How big is your autowhitelist DB getting? That's the only thing I can
imagine that could be responsible. Particularly since you're forcing the
userid to spamc...
C
On 2/28/02 3:27 PM, "Jason Haar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm running SA-2.1 under daemontools and am using softlimits (like
On Thursday 28 February 2002 12:14 pm, Bill Becker wrote:
> I see that a lot of people on the list have carefully enshrined their spam
> into repositories, and this turns out to be a great thing for when you
> want to test rules.
> Are there any collections out there available for download? Note
I'm running SA-2.1 under daemontools and am using softlimits (like ulimits)
to limit the amount of memory a process can use.
It's really weird. When I started using 2.1 spamd, I had the memory limit
set to 7Mb. This worked - for a while. Then SA started crashing saying it
was out of memory - daem
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:19:26PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
| There is a mailing list called [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- you
| can forward such emails there as an attachment. Please forward the
| post-spamassassin processed message, not the unprocessed one.
Before I ditch my mutt macro that, with one
On 2/28/02 2:43 PM, "Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just ran a make test and it says that all tests were successful I
> can send you the output if you want. But for the time being I have
> to use -u. Let me know if I can help out with anything else...
>
> Craig did you still w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just ran a make test and it says that all tests were successful I
can send you the output if you want. But for the time being I have
to use -u. Let me know if I can help out with anything else...
Craig did you still want me to file that bug re
On 2/28/02 2:43 PM, "Bob Plankers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I haven't had time to play with it to see which component (spamd or spamc)
> is not behaving as before. I was having the same problem where the
> spamd/spamc combo wouldn't check my mail unless I specified the -u.
> Howev
Eric,
Is your mailer daemon running as the user 'qmailq'?
I'm not sure that running as root is a good idea, but it may be a symptom
of the same problem.
...Bob
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Woodworth, Eric wrote:
> I also have to run spamc with the -u flag to get it to work. I use "-u
> root". If I
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Martin Pool wrote:
>
> (I've only been using SA for a little while, so you can take this
> with a bit of salt.)
i just started using it too. just switched to from 2.01 to 2.1 though.
> It really does seem to me like the weightings are less useful in 2.1
> than in 2.01. Som
Craig,
I haven't had time to play with it to see which component (spamd or spamc)
is not behaving as before. I was having the same problem where the
spamd/spamc combo wouldn't check my mail unless I specified the -u.
However, it appears that it IS working properly now, without the -u,
running
On 2/28/02 2:26 PM, "Woodworth, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also have to run spamc with the -u flag to get it to work. I use "-u
> root". If I didn't add the -u root it would run as the user qmailq and fail
> every time.
Ok, so you're using the -u flag where it needs to be used -- in
yup caught that and have it up and running ... very nice, thanks :)
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On 2/28/02 4:57 AM, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 'K, removed the version from ports I had installed earlier, and did a
> > rebuild and install:
> >
> > earth
I also have to run spamc with the -u flag to get it to work. I use "-u
root". If I didn't add the -u root it would run as the user qmailq and fail
every time.
At the time I made the change people on this list told me I was wrong, but
I'm certain that it fixed my problem. If I remove it, spamc
Please try "make test" and let me know if it works for you.
C
On 2/28/02 2:01 PM, "Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Running it with the -u fixed it for me...I don't know what is up.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
On 2/28/02 1:46 PM, "Greg Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 February 2002, Mike Loiterman said:
>> But now I have another question. How can those of us with private
>> domains prevent spammers from using our domains as the reply to
>> address or bouncing their crap off our servers?
>
> Y
On 2/28/02 1:44 PM, "Greg Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [I suggest a new rule]
>> Here's a quick and dirty attempt:
>>
>> header TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPARTTo =~ /\"?(\w+)\"?\s+<\1\@[^<>]+>/i
>> describe TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPART Real name in "To:" equals local part
>> score TO_REALNAME_EQ
On 2/28/02 12:33 PM, "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAIK only mutt and gnus have any sort of support for (or concept of)
> mailing lists.
Actually, Entourage (Outlook for MacOS X) also knows a lot about lists, but
doesn't seem to have a reply-to-list button. It does have all kinds of
sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Running it with the -u fixed it for me...I don't know what is up.
Mike Loiterman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-Original Message-
>From: Craig Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:05 PM
>To: Bob Plankers; Mike Loite
On 2/28/02 12:02 PM, "Gunter Ohrner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe SA needs to know some additional non-spam tests to compensate for
> successful spam tests? The current scores look to me as if the GA tried its
> best to avoid false positives which unfortunately contained some
> spam-specifi
On 2/28/02 11:30 AM, "Bob Plankers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you invoke spamc, do so by giving it your username:
>
> spamc -u plankers (for me).
>
> Otherwise the version in 2.1 doesn't function properly.
How so Bob? It works fine for me. When you're running spamc (without -u)
are y
On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 13:22, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Sounds like a good rule -- even people like me who use
> their name as email address probably won't have many
> people using "Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; if
> they're going to go to the trouble of setting
> the real name, they'll now what my last
On 2/28/02 10:10 AM, "Martin Pool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SpamAssassin looks really cool, but at the moment I've had to go back
> to 2.01 to feel comfortable that I won't get incorrect results.
I think a good compromise until I can get 2.11 out is to use 2.1 with
Michael Moncur's contribut
On 2/28/02 9:51 AM, "Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any ideas?
Does "make test" work in the distribution directory?
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Yes, I completely agree. I'll be working on "hinting" the rules and having
the mutation part of the GA tend to move scores in the right direction after
I get 2.11 out.
C
On 2/28/02 9:36 AM, "Greg Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Executive summary: I think that unconstraining the GA was an in
On 28 February 2002, Mike Loiterman said:
> But now I have another question. How can those of us with private
> domains prevent spammers from using our domains as the reply to
> address or bouncing their crap off our servers?
You can't. The Internet just doesn't work that way. Be thankful your
[I suggest a new rule]
> Here's a quick and dirty attempt:
>
> header TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPARTTo =~ /\"?(\w+)\"?\s+<\1\@[^<>]+>/i
> describe TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPART Real name in "To:" equals local part
> score TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPART 2.5
[Craig responds]
> Sounds like a good rule -- e
On 2/28/02 7:27 AM, "Michael Shields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> this is that rules which are really non-discriminators end up sometimes
>> getting
>> odd-looking scores. For example, CYBER_FIRE_POWER is just no
On 2/27/02 10:20 AM, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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::Pe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Finally got my setup working..thanks to all for the help.
But now I have another question. How can those of us with private
domains prevent spammers from using our domains as the reply to
address or bouncing their crap off our servers?
Aside from
On 2/28/02 7:06 AM, "Shane Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
>> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
>> any message deserves having its spam score
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>> To me, -ve scores on tests can also be used to "offset" spammy
>> messages in clean email. I have several of these of my own creation:
>
> Well, yes, that's true - SpamAssassin already includes a bunch of
> these, such as COPYRIGHT_CLAIMED and PHP_SIG
Sounds like a good rule -- even people like me who use their name as email
address probably won't have many people using "Craig"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; if they're going to go to the trouble of setting
the real name, they'll now what my last name is.
C
On 2/28/02 7:08 AM, "Greg Ward" <[EMAIL PROTE
On 28 February 2002, Rob McMillin said:
> My MUA is *not* broken. Reply-To makes it so I can reply to just the
> list. If I use the group function, the original sender gets two copies.
> I find it a convenience, and many lists I'm subscribed to use this feature.
Your MUA should have a "list rep
There is a mailing list called [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- you
can forward such emails there as an attachment. Please forward the
post-spamassassin processed message, not the unprocessed one.
Thanks,
C
On 2/28/02 6:01 AM, "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a place/mailing list that I can s
On 2/28/02 4:57 AM, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 'K, removed the version from ports I had installed earlier, and did a
> rebuild and install:
>
> earth# /usr/bin/spamproxyd
> Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/MyMailAudit.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
> /usr/libdata/perl/5.00503/m
That sounds good. I think people will need to put in the subject line
"SPAM" or "NONSPAM" so that the message ends up in the right corpus though.
And even then I bet some of them will end up in the wrong place -- I suppose
we could just look at the score/threshold reported for the message and
ass
On 2/28/02 1:24 AM, "Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spamc is not working at all regardless of how it is invoked. Even if
> I do spamc -dac from the command line although when I list the
> processes it is listed as running.
Uh, to slarify -- is it spamd or spamc which is not workin
On 28 February 2002, dman said:
> My "real name" == my "local part". Well, not in this example since I
> still have my school's address in the header, but if I use my system's
> address, the From: line will be
> From: dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> and people who stick that directly in their addr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Thursday, 28. February 2002 15:01 schrieb Matt:
> Is there a place/mailing list that I can send a SPAM message that got
> through my SA setup.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetinx,
Gunter Ohrner
- --
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PDEPP Webserver: http://pdepp.Sour
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 09:49:36AM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote:
| Nigel Metheringham wrote:
|
| >Translation:
| > Your MUA is broken and you wish the list config to be
| > broken to make it easier for you to manage.
|
| I object to the snarky tone of your reply. It's unnecessary.
|
| My MUA is *no
I see that a lot of people on the list have carefully enshrined their spam
into repositories, and this turns out to be a great thing for when you
want to test rules.
Are there any collections out there available for download? Note that, i
don't need the headers because i can autogenerate them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Thursday, 28. February 2002 18:36 schrieb Greg Ward:
> First, I ran the 59 existing true positives through SA 2.1, looking for
> any that scored < 5. There were four; three of them slipped by because
> of DEAR_SOMEBODY scoring -4.4, and the fourth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, 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 t
When you invoke spamc, do so by giving it your username:
spamc -u plankers (for me).
Otherwise the version in 2.1 doesn't function properly.
...Bob
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
> Did some digging.
>
> Procmail is working fine
> SpamAssassin is working fine from the command line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
[snipped]
>
> So this is clearly a spamc issue.
>
>
> Spamc is not working at all regardless of how it is invoked. Even if
> I do spamc -dac from the command line although when I list the
> processes it is listed as
If nothing else, it's easier to remove a name from a list of addresses
than have to manually type in the guy's e-mail address.
Please not to change good thing
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/list
At 12:36 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
>Here are my corrected scores, in no particular order. These scores were
>derived using a highly sophisticated natural intelligence algorithm,
>namely gut instinct:
>
> score DEAR_SOMEBODY 1.0 # was -4.4
> score CASHCASHCASH1.
On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 10:08, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> you're probably already using procmail for spamassassin,
> so add in the rule (it's in the procmail man page) that
> unduplicates your messages based on message-id.
That doesn't help people he sends to who might not have that, but your
suggest
On 27 Feb 2002, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
(I've only been using SA for a little while, so you can take this with
a bit
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 09:49:36AM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote:
> My MUA is *not* broken. Reply-To makes it so I can reply to just the
> list. If I use the group function, the original sender gets two copies.
> I find it a convenience, and many lists I'm subscribed to use this feature.
This is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For some reason spamc is not working for me. My mail never gets to
spamassassin and I can't figure out why
Neither of these Procmail rules work
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
:0fw
| spamc
I have checked that spamc is actually in /usr/bin/
Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>Translation:
> Your MUA is broken and you wish the list config to be
> broken to make it easier for you to manage.
>
I object to the snarky tone of your reply. It's unnecessary.
My MUA is *not* broken. Reply-To makes it so I can reply to just the
list. If I use the
Well, the bugs in SA 2.0 just got to be too annoying, so I've upgraded
one box to SA 2.1 -- never mind what people say about the new scores in
2.1. However, I decided to do a little experiment to see how the new
scores stack up against my own personal spam corpus. It isn't much; on
the one hand
On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 16:59, Rob McMillin wrote:
> I haven't been here long (less than 24 hours!), but I have a suggestion:
> is it possible to set the list so it auto-inserts a "Reply-To:" the list
> header, as
>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ? It seems it would be useful.
Translation:
At 09:06 AM 2/28/2002 -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
>> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
>> any message deserves
Michael Moncur wrote:
>>body CORRECT_FOR_EXCHANGE /This message is in MIME format/
>>describe CORRECT_FOR_EXCHANGE Correct for MIME 'null block'
>>
>
>FYI, I seem to recall SA already having a test like this. You might want to
>double-check.
>
Yes, it's called MIME_NULL_BLOCK. (I'm lookin
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Gunter Ohrner wrote:
> Am Thursday, 28. February 2002 00:39 schrieb Bart Schaefer:
> > SPAM: Hit! (6.5 points) BODY: Link to a URL containing "remove"
>
> Were did Bart's message hit the test? That's certainly a false positive. :-)
The A_HREF_TO_REMOVE rule matched the lit
No Craig's suggestion was right on. I forgot about the user_perfs file.
Since that get read last, it was over writing the info I was putting into
local.cf.
I just have one big rule for everybody, so I don't user user_perfs so it
never even occured to me to check until after his suggestion.
Than
Does SA already have a rule for headers like this:
To: gward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
? If not, I think it should -- this seems a fairly popular tactic.
The one I got this morning looked like this:
To: "Gward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...so any such rule should be case-insensitive and handle RFC 8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
> any message deserves having its spam score reduced by 8 points by
> virtue of
> To me, -ve scores on tests can also be used to "offset" spammy messages in
> clean email. I have several of these of my own creation:
Well, yes, that's true - SpamAssassin already includes a bunch of these, such
as COPYRIGHT_CLAIMED and PHP_SIGNATURE. What I was talking about was the fact
that
Is there a place/mailing list that I can send a SPAM message that got
through my SA setup.
I'd like to have the SA wizards take a look at the message to see if there
is anything they can learn from it.
I can post it here, if that is proper.
-Matt
I procmail configured such that if 'hits' is >= 10, the mail goes to
/dev/null and if it is < 10 it goes to a spam folder for later review. given
the apparent dramatic change in scoring, will this configuration still work
as designed? or should I change 10 to some other value? thanks!
--
Dougl
> I know there are theoretical reasons why this might make sense, but I don't
> see any benefit in the real world for scores like these. The high scores
> increase the chance of a random false positive - regardless of the size of
> the existing corpus - and if the negative ones indicate that the r
I have done this and it works but I'm wondering if there's a more
efficient way (since Sendmail is getting called twice here before and
after spamc):
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc | /usr/sbin/sendmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason I don't want to use the Sendmail-miter is I want the per-user
control (and
'K, removed the version from ports I had installed earlier, and did a
rebuild and install:
earth# /usr/bin/spamproxyd
Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/MyMailAudit.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
/usr/libdata/perl/5.00503/mach /usr/libdata/perl/5.00503
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/i386-freebsd
i also find http://spamfilter.nl.linux.org/ very useful.
--
Christof Damian
Technical Director, guideguide ltd.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-ta
I just started using SpamAssassin, and it's real cool. Looking through the
rules, there's a some rules I've found useful in my home grown spam filter,
that might also be useful in SA.
- In rule LIMITED_TIME_ONLY, you might want to also search for
"Limited Time Offer".
- Lots of prhases I've
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>
> In any case, forward as attachment is the one way to do it that
> everyone can use regardless of mail client, and the one way that is
> sure to preserve all the information.
wouldn't it also be useful to make "spamassassin -r" report not only
to r
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 07:48:35AM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Read the README. It's overridable with the '-c' flag to spamassassin.
I think you missed my point.
It is true I did not read the README -- I felt I did not need to.
If SA had been by the sysadmin on my machine, I would have read
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Interesing:
Am Thursday, 28. February 2002 00:39 schrieb Bart Schaefer:
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results
> -- SPAM: Diese eMail enthält höchstwahrscheinlich
> unerwünschte Werbung (SPAM). SPAM: Die eMai
"Craig R Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to admit that I haven't actually been
> monitoring sa-sightings at all.
I guess my intuition was right :-)
> Most of the reason for that is that I don't
> really have the time to manually process all the mails
Exactly. I don't see how a sight
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Did some digging.
Procmail is working fine
SpamAssassin is working fine from the command line
SpamAssassin is working fine when called from procmail via a .forward
and .procmailrc file
So this is clearly a spamc issue.
Spamc is not working at
In case anyone is interested, attached is the modified 50_scores.cf file I'm
trying with SA 2.1. I've just gone through the GA-generated scores and
introduced some limits:
- Scores over 4.000 limited to 4.000
- Negative scores on compensating rules (i.e. COPYRIGHT_CLAIMED) limited
to -4.000
-
Access to the list of spams is somewhat restricted because it contains email
addresses of spamtraps.
The nonspam archive doesn't exist as such -- each of the contributors to the
nonspam side run mass-check on their own mails and submit the nonspam.log
output.
Really there are 2 effective ways of
Is spamd running?
Is procmail actually looking for its rc file in /usr/local/etc?
C
On 2/28/02 12:07 AM, "Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ./spamassassin < sample-spam.txt > spam.out show spamassassin working
> correctly
> spa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is the output from spamd -D:
debug: ignore: test message to precompile patterns and load modules
debug: using "/usr/share/spamassassin" for default rules dir
debug: using "/etc/mail/spamassassin" for site rules dir
debug: running header regexp
90 matches
Mail list logo
