Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

> Justin Mason wrote on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:18:07 -0700: > >> - spamd now supports UNIX-domain sockets for low-overhead scanning, >> thanks >> to Steve Friedl for this. Strongly recommended if you're running >> spamc >> on the same host as the spamd server >> > > What does this mean, what's th

[SAtalk] Wrong score for Message-ID

This message ID gets *severely* punished... perhaps a bit TOO much. Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MSGID_SPAMSIGN_ZEROES (4.3 points) Message-Id generated by spam tool (zeroes variant) MSGID_OE_SPAM_4ZERO (4.3 points) Message-Id generated by spam tool (4-zeroes variant) MSGID_OUTLOOK_TIME (4.4

[SAtalk] bayes db version

Upgraded to 2.60-rc3 via rpm packages I built from source. When looking at some of my users I see this, for their bayse dbase, when I run: sa-learn --dump Output: 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: bayes db version 0.000 0 73 0 non-token data: nspam

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

> On Friday 29 August 2003 04:34 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:57:27PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote: >> > Fixed now, but the second part of Theo's fix (assuming he did it :) >> > doesn't seem to be in there - using any \n's to add a newline into a >> > report header still e

Re: [SAtalk] [SA-Announce] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

> Installed fine, upgraded fine from cvs of three weeks ago or so. Can't > comment on effectiveness yet. One thing I note is that it again needs more > RAM, it's now at almost 25 MB. Not for me it size, Size of 19996, and RSS of 17M after running for a while... the same as 2.55. Regards, Simon

Re: [SAtalk] Turning on Bayes

At 03:13 PM 8/29/2003 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I notice that there are different scores for tests depending on "how" spamassassin is running, and that one of the differences is whether Bayes filtering is turned on. But I've explicitly set use_bayes, and yet I never see a Bayes score turn u

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

Malte S. Stretz wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:42:15 +0200: > What does perl -V:prefix say? > /usr So, this is dependant on the perl PREFIX path? That explains why others get a different path although they don't use a specific PREFIX switch. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web a

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Malte S. Stretz wrote: > >> to make it work like before (or make a symlink from /usr/local/etc to >> /etc). >> See also bug 2374 [1]. > >> [1]http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2374 > > Ah. Reading through the suggestions on Bugzilla - having everything in > /us

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

> On Friday 29 August 2003 17:02 CET Christopher X. Candreva wrote: >> Is there a build switch to tell spamc to use a Unix doimain socket (and >> the socket name) by default ? > > Nope. > >> Also, for some reason on rc3, perl Makefile.PL built a system that was >> looking in /usr/local/etc/spamas

Re: [SAtalk] GA results

> - Original Message - > From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Bob Dickinson (BSL)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:36 AM > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] How long should a GA run take? > > It's sort of complicated, which is why I'm h

Re: [SAtalk] Min Score

At 8/29/03 12:34 PM , Matt Kettler wrote: However, in 2.60-rc3 there are very few negative scoring rules. It would be considerably less common for a message to get a sub-zero score.. Check a message from someone that's whitelisted, or has a Habeas SWE header in it. 2.55 had about 64 rules with

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

Justin Mason wrote on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:18:07 -0700: > - spamd now supports UNIX-domain sockets for low-overhead scanning, thanks > to Steve Friedl for this. Strongly recommended if you're running spamc > on the same host as the spamd server > What does this mean, what's the advantage of t

[SAtalk] -d --lint scores ?

I noted that I get quite different scores for spamassassin -D --lint on different machines depending on Bayes. On one system I get BAYES_10 (a well trained system with lots of mail in the db), on another system I get BAYES_70 (with only a few hundred mails in the db). What does sa use for testin

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Friday 29 August 2003 23:31 CET Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Malte S. Stretz wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:32:52 +0200: > > > Also, for some reason on rc3, perl Makefile.PL built a system that > > > was looking in /usr/local/etc/spamassassin for local.cf instead of in > > > /etc/mail/spamassasin, as pr

RE: [SAtalk] hardware recomendations

Estimating a machine for another's mail environment is a tricky thing. Memory *tends* to be more important than CPU. Personally, even if I could get away with a P166, I wouldn't. A box that old has an increased probability of dieing an unnatural death. I would at least want a box that I could su

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Friday 29 August 2003 21:52 CET Henrik Schmiediche wrote: >I would like to second the notion that having to specify SYSCONFDIR > is going to cause sys-admins problems that do not follow this list. I > have no problem with the idea in principle; I just think it needs to be > well documented,

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

Malte S. Stretz wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:32:52 +0200: > > Also, for some reason on rc3, perl Makefile.PL built a system that was > > looking in /usr/local/etc/spamassassin for local.cf instead of in > > /etc/mail/spamassasin, as previous versions did. > > Yeah, this has changed a bit. You ha

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

"Henrik Schmiediche" writes: > > I would like to second the notion that having to specify SYSCONFDIR >is going to cause sys-admins problems that do not follow this list. I >have no problem with the idea in principle; I just think it needs to be >well documented, preferable with a run-time-instal

Re: [SAtalk] hardware recomendations

At 03:15 PM 8/29/2003 -0400, Jon Fraley wrote: It will probably handle 3k to 5k messages daily. Does anyone have a recommendations on hardware. I have an old Pentium 166 that I thought about using. A p-166 strikes me as awfully light on CPU power for a mailserver running SA on 3-5k messages per

Re: [SAtalk] [SA-Announce] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

Installed fine, upgraded fine from cvs of three weeks ago or so. Can't comment on effectiveness yet. One thing I note is that it again needs more RAM, it's now at almost 25 MB. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com IE-Center

[SAtalk] Turning on Bayes

I notice that there are different scores for tests depending on "how" spamassassin is running, and that one of the differences is whether Bayes filtering is turned on. But I've explicitly set use_bayes, and yet I never see a Bayes score turn up in the summary on a message. I've put a bunch of mess

RE: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

I would like to second the notion that having to specify SYSCONFDIR is going to cause sys-admins problems that do not follow this list. I have no problem with the idea in principle; I just think it needs to be well documented, preferable with a run-time-install check. The SYSCONFDIR issue was t

[SAtalk] Documentation: autolearn cutoff values in 2.60-rc3

Hello, The documentation for 2.60-rc3 claims the bayes auto learn cutoff values are -2 & 15. I think they have been changed to 0.1 and 12. Is that correct? Sincerely, - Henrik --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcom

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 - lots of misses by SA

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Andreas Kotowicz wrote: > seems like I had to update HTML-Parser to version 3.31. now it works. > but I still get one error messages during make test: > > > t/spamd.ok > t/spamd_allow_user_rules. Found anti-pattern: > redefined_errors_in_spamd_log = redef

[SAtalk] Message-ID and Received Lines

Hi Carlo and Martin, I was wondering I could ask a huge favor of you both. Could you search your spam and ham history to see if there is a good correlation between the Message-Id and Received line. I would like to do this myself but all my messages are in Exchange. I was thinking of something l

Re: [SAtalk] Min Score

At 12:12 PM 8/29/2003 -0600, Lucas Albers wrote: I just installed 2.60-rc3. I noticed that the minimum score I am getting on messages is 0.0. Is their a new default minimum score sa will assign email? The lowest score it will give for example, is 0.0? Ideas? There's never been any sort of minimum

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 - lots of misses by SA

On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 17:43, Malte S. Stretz wrote: > On Friday 29 August 2003 16:22 CET Andreas Kotowicz wrote: > > lots of mails don't get tagged by spamassassin rc3. I just updated from > > 2.55 to 2.60 rc3 and those messages attached to this mail went through > > without being marked. no single

Re: [SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Malte S. Stretz wrote: > to make it work like before (or make a symlink from /usr/local/etc to /etc). > See also bug 2374 [1]. > [1]http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2374 Ah. Reading through the suggestions on Bugzilla - having everything in /usr/local/etc may

[SAtalk] hardware recomendations

I am planning on putting a Red Hat 9.0 box on our network to scan incoming email using sendmail, spamass-milter and spamassassin2.55. It will probably handle 3k to 5k messages daily. Does anyone have a recommendations on hardware. I have an old Pentium 166 that I thought about using. -- Jon Fr

Re: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring

At 12:42 PM 8/29/2003 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and in order to increase the scores from certain bayes confidence levels, make edits, such as: body BAYES_70 eval:check_bayes('0.70', '1.80') body BAYES_80 eval:check_bayes('0.80', '1.90') body BAYES_9

RE: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring

My guess is that if it has a high bayes score already, you don't need to re-learn it - the Bayesian engine already /knows/ about the interesting tokens contained therein. However, I admit to sa-learning my lower-scoring spam that may have a BAYES_n where n is less than 90. If it has a BAYES_99

[SAtalk] Min Score

I just installed 2.60-rc3. I noticed that the minimum score I am getting on messages is 0.0. Is their a new default minimum score sa will assign email? The lowest score it will give for example, is 0.0? Ideas? --- This sf.net email is sponso

Re: [SAtalk] spamd & user_prefs

On 08/29/03 01:37 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed: > Hi Louis, > > > From: Louis LeBlanc > > > Sorry for barging in on this thread, but I'm trying to get this > > working myself right now (spamd/spamc with procmail). I have one > > question though. > > Join the party! :-) > > Rega

Re: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 04:57, Dragoncrest wrote: > >Quite. They got pummelled to death by a DDoS. See: > > Yeah, stupid pathetic cowardly spammers (I can think of some much > more colorful choice words for this, but I'll save those for later) are now > fighting back by DDoS'ing all the b

Re: [SAtalk] defining the min/max score per test

On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 17:40, Matt Kettler wrote: > >how do they increment? > > What do you mean by "increment" here? If you're wondering how it chooses > which of the 4 scores to use, I explained that above. If you are wondering > how a message which matches multiple rules is score, SA just a

RE: [SAtalk] spamd & user_prefs

Hi Louis, > -Original Message- > From: Louis LeBlanc > Sorry for barging in on this thread, but I'm trying to get this > working myself right now (spamd/spamc with procmail). I have one > question though. Join the party! > Regarding spamc, if the -f flag us used and it can't connect

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

Simon Byrnand writes: >Although I don't have the answer to your question, I suggest you look at >using the following options to reduce the various timeouts to minimize the >chance of a "train wreck" due to things outside your control :) > >rbl_timeout >razor_timeout >dcc_timeout >pyzor_timeout >

RE: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring

Somebody already answered the syntax for modifying your scores in your local.cf, so... The auto-learn "bayes evaluator" doesn't take the Bayes scores into account when deciding whether to learn as spam or ham. So you could have autolearn threshold set to 10, have your Bayes tests at 20 points,

[SAtalk] LOW score 0.6 why????

Just had this one come through for domains. Really low score. Should I add a new rule?? Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from hotbox.ru ([211.219.2.60]) by mta014.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with SMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring

The correct syntax for your local.cf file is: scoreBAYES_99 5.0 scoreBAYES_90 4.0 etc Cheers, Jon. On Friday 29 August 2003 11:42 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Greetings, > > I'd like to increase the score for certain bayes > confidence levels. My understanding is

[SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring

Greetings, I'd like to increase the score for certain bayes confidence levels. My understanding is that I need to put one (or more) of these lines from /usr/locals/hare/spamassassin/23_bayes.cf: body BAYES_60 eval:check_bayes('0.60', '0.70') body BAYES_70 ev

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:43:52 -0400 (EDT) "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > > > it's in by default: > > > > spamc: > > -U socketpath > > Connect to "spamd" via UNIX domain socket socketpath instead of a TCP/IP > > connection. >

Re: [SAtalk] defining the min/max score per test

At 09:30 AM 8/29/2003 +0100, Mark C wrote: For example in the above, if it finds anything in the body that indicats it came from the MSN Communities, it gives it a score of 0.0 (which if I am correct doesn't add anything to the total spam test score), whereas on the test marked: Q_FOR_SELLER, if th

Re: Debian stable backport (was: [SAtalk] Trademark improperly used in deceptive ad?)

Bob Proulx wrote: > Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Bob Proulx wrote: > > > I assume you found Duncan's backport area? Just making sure. > > > deb http://people.debian.org/~duncf/debian/ woody main > > That only appears to include 2.54. > > If you review what changed between 2.54 and 2.55 you will f

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Friday 29 August 2003 17:43 CET Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > That means any of my users who put spamc in their .procmailrc file has to > know 1) to use a socketpath, and 2) what the path is. I'm looking for a > compile option to Makefile.PL (or ./configure, or whichever) so that > spamc, wi

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > it's in by default: > > spamc: > -U socketpath > Connect to "spamd" via UNIX domain socket socketpath instead of a TCP/IP connection. That means any of my users who put spamc in their .procmailrc file has to know 1) to use a socketpath, and 2) what th

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > Is there a build switch to tell spamc to use a Unix doimain socket (and the > socket name) by default ? it's in by default: spamd: --socketpath=path Listen on given UNIX domain socket spamc: -U socketpat

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 - lots of misses by SA

On Friday 29 August 2003 16:22 CET Andreas Kotowicz wrote: > lots of mails don't get tagged by spamassassin rc3. I just updated from > 2.55 to 2.60 rc3 and those messages attached to this mail went through > without being marked. no single trace of spamassassin! I have perl > 5.005_03 installed. A

Re: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

On 08/29/03 09:39 AM, Frank Pineau sat at the `puter and typed: > > > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dragoncrest wrote: > > > > > You'd figure by now that they'd get > > the message that neither they nor their garbage is wanted. But obviously not. > > As long as people continue to respond to their spam

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Friday 29 August 2003 17:02 CET Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > Is there a build switch to tell spamc to use a Unix doimain socket (and > the socket name) by default ? Nope. > Also, for some reason on rc3, perl Makefile.PL built a system that was > looking in /usr/local/etc/spamassassin for

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > - spamd now supports UNIX-domain sockets for low-overhead scanning, thanks > to Steve Friedl for this. Strongly recommended if you're running spamc > on the same host as the spamd server Is there a build switch to tell spamc to use a Unix doimain s

RE: [SAtalk] Question

Hi Rick, I was looking at the filepipe script you suggested using for the purpose outlined by Thomas. I was wondering if you have anymore information on how to use it or how to set it up. UNIX isn't one of my strong points so if you have a link or something on how to use it that would be grea

[SAtalk] UNSUBSCRIBE

Title: UNSUBSCRIBE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 10:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Spamassassin-talk digest, Vol 1 #1504 - 33 msgs This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Se

Re: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dragoncrest wrote: > > You'd figure by now that they'd get > the message that neither they nor their garbage is wanted. But obviously not. As long as people continue to respond to their spam by sending them money, then what message are they expected to get? That spamming

[SAtalk] report_safe_copy_headers still broken in RC3.

In rc3, with the following /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf: $ cat local.cf # This is the right place to customize your installation of SpamAssassin. # See 'perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf' for details of what can be # tweaked. #

[SAtalk] Cannot get host name of local machine

I'm using Spamassassin with Amavis-new amavisd-new-20030616-p5 on a FreeBSD 4.8 with Perl 5.005. I have been using Spamassassin 2.60 development downloaded Jul 17. But when i upgraded to version 2.60-RC3 i get the following error when Spamassassin is started by Amavis-new: Cannot get host name of

[SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 - lots of misses by SA

lots of mails don't get tagged by spamassassin rc3. I just updated from 2.55 to 2.60 rc3 and those messages attached to this mail went through without being marked. no single trace of spamassassin! I have perl 5.005_03 installed. thanks, andreas --- Begin Message ---

[SAtalk] exim 4.22 - spamassassin router question

Is there a way to only send mail to spamassassin if a user is in a certain list? Though this doesn't work, this is what I'm trying to accomplish: spamcheck_router: no_verify condition = "${if and { {!def:h_X-Spam-Flag:} \ {!eq {$received_protocol}{spam-scanned}}} {1

Re: [SAtalk] spamd & user_prefs

On 08/28/03 11:08 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed: > First, I use Procmail rather than the spamfilter script. The concept is > similar but my experience with the script is limited. > > I had found a link to SecuritySage that might help you best. > > http://www.securitysage.com/guide

RE: [SAtalk] score based on time of day rec'd?

> -Original Message- > From: jpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 5:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] score based on time of day rec'd? > > > I was wondering if there are any tests that score based on > what time of day > the mail is being rec

Re: [SAtalk] moving spam mails to a seperate folder

Amavisd-new has a feature that you can enable viz: if SPAM then transform [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then your delivery agent can refile it on the fly. Alternatively, you can do this yourself by either hacking the maildeliver or placing a script in the pipeline (or by writing

Re: [SAtalk] microsoft_executeable

Hello again, finally i managed to setup & run qmail-scanner. the included install-test ran fine..mails have been tagged as spam + filtered. i tried to add the filter .exe0not allowed (and rebuild the *.db-file) I sent a mail with an attached *.exe* file but the mail came trough withou

Re: [SAtalk] moving spam mails to a seperate folder

Have you considered using Procmail to filter the mail once its tagged or not tagged? That's what I use and it's awesome. Does everything I need. If you need a good working example procmailrc file, let me know and I'll pass along mine. Now if you had something else in mind lik

Re: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

Quite. They got pummelled to death by a DDoS. See: Yeah, stupid pathetic cowardly spammers (I can think of some much more colorful choice words for this, but I'll save those for later) are now fighting back by DDoS'ing all the blacklists off the planet just so they can continue to propa

[SAtalk] SA Proxy-SERVER (Not Desktop)

Hello All! I have a Debian Linux server online and as a courtesy service to my friends and relatives I would like to offer spam filtering with SA as a proxy server. In short, I want to do on a server what POPFile does client-side but with SA, RAZOR and all the goodies that Win32 doesn't support.

[SAtalk] Re: SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Friday 29 August 2003 04:34 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:57:27PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote: > > Fixed now, but the second part of Theo's fix (assuming he did it :) > > doesn't seem to be in there - using any \n's to add a newline into a > > report header still effecti

Re: [SAtalk] 2.60 rc3 - Docs

> Bayes FYI: 2.60 has a new Bayes backend and database format. The very helpful information about the changes to the Bayes database format, which you included in your announcement, does not seem to appear in the documentation. Would it be worth adding it to the README or INSTALL files? Geoff Gib

Re: [SAtalk] SA + LDAP

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:51:12AM +0200, Kristian Koehntopp wrote: > I have just updated bug 2205 > (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205) with a > new patch. That patch is against curent CVS as of Sun Aug 24 > 08:36:55 UTC 2003, which should be pretty much 2.60rc2. I have updat

[SAtalk] enable/disable spamassassin via sql check

Hi, I want to setup up spamassassin for virtual users who don't have a home directory. that's why a /etc/procmailrc file should point to each users spamassassin setting. I want to give the user the opportunity to disable and enable spamassassin if they want to. so is there a variable I could put

[SAtalk] moving spam mails to a seperate folder

Hello All, I'm using spamassassin-2.55 with qmail-ldap. It is working fine. Now the spamassassin is rewriting the subject with the tag *SPAM* in subject. I want to move these spam mails to a seperate folder automatically when it is detected as spam. The content of my current .qmail file i

[SAtalk] defining the min/max score per test

Hi, I have spamassassin installed on my debian woody e-mail server, out of the box it works generally ok, except for a few false alerts, which is why this mail comes in, I wish to allow each use to setup their own user_prefs file, I have sucsessfully implimented this, but I'm having trouble unders

[SAtalk] User Stae dir.

Hi. I have this error in my mail log file: Set the "SpamAssassin user state dir" to a directory that the "Run As User" can write to. What is that dir been set ?. In what file ?. -- Med venlig hilsen - Best regards. Erik Jakobsen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Licensed radioamateur with the callsign OZ4KK.

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

David Birnbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That sounds good, but will the debug switch show you which test is > timing out so you CAN disable it quickly? I found it pretty hard to > figure out which test was failing. Yep. -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux,

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I presume though that I'd still be wise to keep the timeouts for razor, > dcc, and pyzor ? And speaking of that, do they run in parallel with each > other and/or other network tests, or one at a time ? One at a bloody slow time. SpamAssassin would be m

Re: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

At 8/28/03 11:44 PM , Alan Fullmer wrote: never mind, i've been informed they went out of business... is this correct? Quite. They got pummelled to death by a DDoS. See: http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/0d601ca4ba2fec5080256d910018ca92 http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/0,20

[SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

Cool, the make tests now run MUCH faster that either RC1 or RC2, there seemed to be a problem on my setup that they took over 30 minutes to complete. Thie time it only took a couple. Keep up the good work. Robin Cornelius --- This sf.net e

Re: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

- Original Message - From: "Alan Fullmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:31 AM Subject: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT > anyone having false positives by osirusoft lately? > > everything that comes thru my server is getting tagged. > > anyone else? Gone

Re: [SAtalk] configuration

On 8/29/03 2:51 AM, "Jon Fraley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (B (B> I am trying to get Spamassassin 2.55, spamass-milter-0.2.0 and (B> sendmail-8.11.6-26.72 running with Red Hat AS 2.1. I have installed (B> everything and have started all process, however no emails are being (B> sent through S

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

> Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So umm, how does the rbl_timeout setting work in 2.60 then ? I didn't >> quite >> follow the logic of what you said :) I would have previously assumed >> that >> it was just a cutoff where if an individual test took longer than that >> it >> was abor

Re: [SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

never mind, i've been informed they went out of business... is this correct? Alan Fullmer Owner / Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xnote Communications www.xnote.com - Original Message - From: "Alan Fullmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:31

[SAtalk] SpamAssassin Question

Hi all, I have installed SpamAssassin on a FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE box from /usr/ports/mail/p5-Mail-SpamAssassin. I am currently reading through /usr/local/share/doc/p5-Mail-SpamAssassin/USAGE, specifically: "Test it: spamassassin -t < sample-nonspam.txt > nonspam.out

[SAtalk] OSIRUSOFT

anyone having false positives by osirusoft lately? everything that comes thru my server is getting tagged. anyone else? --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So umm, how does the rbl_timeout setting work in 2.60 then ? I didn't quite > follow the logic of what you said :) I would have previously assumed that > it was just a cutoff where if an individual test took longer than that it > was aborted but i

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

At 22:38 28/08/2003 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote: Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Although I don't have the answer to your question, I suggest you look at > using the following options to reduce the various timeouts to minimize the > chance of a "train wreck" due to things outside your

Re: [SAtalk] score based on time of day rec'd?

Larry Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Read the archives under the subject "Mail arrival time may be a criteria". > The following is a useful link: > > http://www.gryzor.com/tools/spamstats-pics.html It is only marginally useful at best, IMO. SpamAssassin would be very likely to assign such

Re: [SAtalk] MICROSOFT_EXECUTEABLE

"Cornelius Bolten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > heya list, i'm very new to spamassassin, but managed to setup > qmail+vpopmail+sa yet = :) is there any solution to filter or score > attachments (like *exe or *pif) = with spamassassin ? > > i saw something like: > score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 0

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Although I don't have the answer to your question, I suggest you look at > using the following options to reduce the various timeouts to minimize the > chance of a "train wreck" due to things outside your control :) > > rbl_timeout > razor_timeout > d

Re: [SAtalk] Turning off Osirusoft in 2.60

"Dan Kohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Aren't the directions at > > only correct for 2.55 and earlier? They are correct for 2.5x. > For 2.60, shouldn't it be: > > score RCVD_IN_OSIR

RE: [SAtalk] internal domain mail getting blocked

Hi Robin, > -Original Message- > From: Robin Witkop-Staub > I have instances where users try to email me a block of > messages they want blacklisted. The spam filter will see > them all and tag the message as SPAM. Is there a way I can > tell spamassassin not to mark internal mail as

Re: [SAtalk] Change points in AWL

At 02:12 AM 8/29/03 +0200, Jim Knuth wrote: In other words, the command-line spamassassin --add-to-whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED] add to whitelist? *shame on me* No, spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Works that way... Spamassassin --add-to-whitelist expects an actual email message, not an email

RE: [SAtalk] spamd & user_prefs

First, I use Procmail rather than the spamfilter script. The concept is similar but my experience with the script is limited. I had found a link to SecuritySage that might help you best. http://www.securitysage.com/guides/postfix_uce_sa.html I will continue to help if you think it would be ben

[SAtalk] adjusting required token hits for bayes

Is there a way to tell bayes to require at least X number of hits? I received a piece of ham that was flagged the following: BAYES_99 (3.0 points) BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 0.9990, hits: 'N:H*r:N.NN.NN':1,] I would like to set the minimum

RE: [SAtalk] spamd & user_prefs

Hi Jason, > -Original Message- > From: Jason McCormick I looked at your config. It looks right. I just have a couple of mundane questions. 1) Why do you think this is not working? Is SA not even marking the message? 2) Is spamd running? (netstat -l | grep 783) 3) Do you see anything i

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:57:27PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote: > Fixed now, but the second part of Theo's fix (assuming he did it :) doesn't > seem to be in there - using any \n's to add a newline into a report header > still effectively disables automatic header folding causing long lines... Th

Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

At 17:18 28/08/2003 -0700, Justin Mason wrote: - bug 2347: add_header did not support multiple newlines Fixed now, but the second part of Theo's fix (assuming he did it :) doesn't seem to be in there - using any \n's to add a newline into a report header still effectively disables automatic hea

Re: [SAtalk] DNS Timeout Issues

At 21:23 27/08/2003 -0400, David Birnbaum wrote: Folks, With respect to the OSIRU DNS problems recently, we had the situation where SpamAssassin suddenly went from taking one second to process a message to 30 seconds or more. Mail suddenly started backing up, and we ended up with a real train wre

[SAtalk] Qmail and SpamAssassin permissions...question.

I installed SpamAssassin on my system and started the dameon process and verified that is it running. I moved qmail-queue to be qmail-queue.orig and put a script in place to invoke Spamassassin and then pipe the output to qmail-queue.orig. My problem arises that when qmail-queue.orig executes it

Re: [SAtalk] spamd & user_prefs

On Thursday 28 August 2003 05:12 pm, Larry Gilson wrote: > > 1) spamd must run as root, otherwise it can't fork and drop > > priviledges to the user in question. Among other things, > > this lets it create the ~/.spamassassin directory if it > > doesn't exist. You *may* be able to get away with r

Re: [SAtalk] GA results (was: How long should a GA run take?)

Theo, Thanks very much for your help. I think I'm almost there... > - Original Message - > From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Bob Dickinson (BSL)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:36 AM > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] How long sho

[SAtalk] SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3 released

Pick it up from: http://SpamAssassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc3.tar.gz http://SpamAssassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc3.zip md5sums: 141a73b07d46324865ea7ead49375043 Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc3.tar.gz 94f196bfe9301233c848934908cc96ac Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-rc3.zi

  1   2   >