It seems i didn't appreciate that autolearn in that line relates to how
that particular message was autolearnt.
So things are working as I expect them to.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgee
Selon Hannu Liljemark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Uh... so is spamd working at all? Do you see spamd write logs when mail
> goes through the system? How about that 'spamassassin -t -D < testmail',
> does it show lines about razor?
OK, here is my complete log; it does show lines about razor, but th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just reading the release notes for 2.60 and noticed this:
- spamd now supports UNIX-domain sockets for low-overhead scanning,
thanks
to Steve Friedl for this. This is strongly recommended if you're
running
spamc on the same host as the sp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Darren,
Monday, September 22, 2003, 4:43:33 PM, you wrote:
DM> 256 Ham, 1040 Probably Spam (>5 points), 256 Almost Certainly Spam
DM> (>15 points), and 269 false negatives, 0 false positives. Bayes was
DM> trained with 16680 Spam, 4092 Ham, 12
RE:
X-Spam-Status:
Yes, hits=10.7 required=0.6 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,
DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML,HTML_60_70,
HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_FONTCOLOR_GREEN,HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,
HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,MISSING_MIMEOLE,
NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP autolea
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:52:40PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> No, I still don't have anything in the logs...
> Here is my sendmail entry concerning spamassassin:
> INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`spamassassin', `S=local:/var/run/spamass-milter.sock, F=,
> T=C:15m;S:4m;R:4m;E:10m')
>
> And here is the p
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:58:51PM -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Skylar Thompson wrote:
> > I use the MIMEDefang and SpamAssassin plugins for sendmail on my
> > FreeBSD 4.8 mail server. For some reason, SpamAssassin tags all
> > messages as SpamAssassin tags all messages as spam, even when the
> > sc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Mike,
Monday, September 22, 2003, 5:47:27 PM, you wrote:
MK> For me spam is sex, drugs/pharmacies, nigerian bank proposals, etc
Agreed. And if your test had mentioned P...rn, V...gra, pen...ses or
brea...ts, nigerian banks and millions of dol
SA is doing a superb job in my gateways config (with amavisd-new and
clamav), but I'd like to get a better feel for the relative effects of
the various rules - in particular BAYES_*, AWL, my 'custom local.cf
rules', RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP, AWL...
- My logs now show the TotalHits and the RulesInvolve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello John,
Monday, September 22, 2003, 12:48:55 PM, you wrote:
>> Something like
>> > body RM_b_V-drug/V[Ii1\|[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
>> but for the subject, right?
JP> Yes, this is along the lines of what I wanted since, at least my
JP> version o
At 11:15 PM 9/22/03 -0400, Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Whenever I try to change the scores in the rules of configuration file,
with, e.g.,
score DIET 7.0
score WEALTH 8.0
etc., Spam assassin stop schevking for that rile, i.e., it has the effect
of setting it to zero.
Using v 1.2.1
Help?
Um, 1.2.1?
I just upgraded from rc5 and did something wrong.
It appears that the BAYES database is not being consulted by
SpamAssassin.
Some mail is not getting scored at all. Other mail gets a higher than
normal score due to not getting BAYES scored. I see no BAYES tags in the
headers at all.
I can read t
Is there any difference in code between the final and the RC6 release?
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
---
This sf.net email is spons
Whenever I try to change the scores in the rules
of configuration file, with, e.g.,
score DIET 7.0
score WEALTH 8.0
etc., Spam assassin stop schevking for that rile,
i.e., it has the effect of setting it to zero.
Using v 1.2.1
Help?
Thanks.
__Jay R.
Yab
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> spamassassin
Can't locate IO/Socket/INET.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i586-linux-thread-multi
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i586-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl .) at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i586-l
Hi Kenneth,
> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth Porter
> --On Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:31 PM -0400 Matt Kettler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However, you could write a custom rule or two to pick these off.
> >
> > A body rule something like this should do:
> >
> > body LOCA
SpamAssassin 2.60 is released! SpamAssassin 2.60 is the first major
update of SpamAssassin since February 2003 (when the 2.50 series was
released).
SpamAssassin is a mail filter which uses advanced statistical
and heuristic tests to identify spam (also known as unsolicited
commercial/bulk email).
Hi Darren,
> 256 Ham, 1040 Probably Spam (>5 points), 256 Almost Certainly
> Spam (>15 points), and 269 false negatives, 0 false
> positives. Bayes was trained with 16680 Spam, 4092 Ham,
> 125776 tokens. I have auto-learning enabled, and feed all
> the false negatives back into sa-learn th
At 11:43 PM 9/22/03 +, Darren Madams wrote:
Note in advance, I'm assuming sa 2.55 since this is a recent install.
Philosophical question #1: Am I expecting too much to be disappointed
with so many false negatives? I'm [obviously] nowhere near the numbers
you guys are quoting. A lot of
At 9/22/03 04:43 PM , Darren Madams wrote:
Philosophical question #3: One of the things I liked about SpamBouncer
was feeding it your legitimate email addresses and mailing list addresses
and then it would consider items sent TO those (missing or specifically
there) in the overall scoring. I
As I mentioned in my first email...I will customize SA to get desired
filtering behaviour. I have always realized this is possible...it's just
that I don't always want (or expect) to spend that much time
installing/configuring certain applications. I believed this would be 'out
of box' behaviour, b
At 03:34 PM 9/22/03 -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Ugh. How do I change the score again?
I put:
score BAYES_80 2.00 2.00 2.00
in local.cf - but it's not working. I'm trying to catch the stuff that's
slipping through with only 4.4, etc.
Thanks!
try:
score BAYES_80 0 0 2.00 2.00
Note there's _f
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 01:48 CET Stephen Lau wrote:
> I'm running 2.55 as spamd (rather than standalone)...I just noticed
> that my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf doesn't seem to be having any
> effect on my incoming mail. I've got
SpamAssassin is probably looking for that file somewhere e
Hello Mike,
Monday, September 22, 2003, 1:47:50 PM, you wrote:
MK> In response to my complaint of weak rules out of box:
Mike, the value of Spamassassin is its ability to weight
based on a combination of factors, rather than simply delete
email based on single words or phrases. Words that seem
s
On Monday, September 22, 2003 @ 3:17:03 PM [-0700], landy wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 07:56, Markus Gaugusch wrote:
>> On Sep 22, Tom Meunier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Spamstats does that.
>> Thanks! That's EXACTLY what I wanted :)
> for this to work do you need spamd?
Yes. Spamstat
I'm running 2.55 as spamd (rather than standalone)...I just noticed
that my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf doesn't seem to be having any
effect on my incoming mail. I've got
score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 15.0
score RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM 0.00
score X_OSIRU_OPEN_RELAY0.00
score X_OSIRU_D
OK, I need some help, and sorry in advance for the long email. I had tried SA about a
year ago and wasn't overly impressed. I ended up going with SpamBouncer, which worked
reasonably well but quickly got out of date and had no facilities for easy update
(other than from the author, who it ap
Larry Gilson wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:44:29 -0400:
> The virus library
> documentation and all the messages I have seen indicate that the From and To
> are grabbed from multiple locations on the computer and the Subject is
> dynamic from hard-coded lists. It says nothing about the MAIL FROM b
Dan Tappin wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:46:00 -0600:
This only means that you have the "always report" option on. That "preamble"
is always the same, be it spam or ham.
> Just in the past hour SA has started identifying e-mail as spam that should
> not be. I have several domains / addresses whi
Ugh. How do I change the score again?
I put:
score BAYES_80 2.00 2.00 2.00
in local.cf - but it's not working. I'm trying to catch the stuff that's
slipping through with only 4.4, etc.
Thanks!
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGe
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 07:56, Markus Gaugusch wrote:
> On Sep 22, Tom Meunier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Spamstats does that.
> Thanks! That's EXACTLY what I wanted :)
for this to work do you need spamd?
i use procmail/postfix
and when i ran it got this
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/spamstats-0.4b5>
Sorry everyone,
I am a dork. I had another filter at work and mistakenly had it reporting
trapped spam to the same monitoring account. I though SA was trapping this
spam.
Dan
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan
> Tappin
> Sent: Monda
Luis Hernán Otegui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> About $PATH:
>> From the spamd start script:
> PATH=$PATH:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin
What's the _full_ PATH variable? Telling me that /usr/bin and
/usr/local/bin were appended to PATH does not answer the question.
> And you're right, Daniel, in the
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin filters seem too weak out of the
> box...
[]
>
> As far as I could tell, my spam email was pfs (that's pretty f%$%$king
> -1.0/5.0
-1.0 ist less then the required 5 points. This is not identified as
spam. Mail is spam if it reaches the 5.0 points or is above.
Can you send the complete mail header (x-out the adresses). This part is
not enough to help you.
Klaus
--
Just in the past hour SA has started identifying e-mail as spam that should
not be. I have several domains / addresses white listed in my local.cf file
and even these are getting tagged as spam. Here is the output of a message
filtered at the server as spam but yet the spamc report is contradicto
I use ClamAV and recommend it without reservation, if you're running
your own mail server.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Philip Mak wrote:
> I'm receiving a flood of Microsoft viruses recently. I went to sleep
> for 7 hours, and I came up with 145 new messages, almost all of them
> Microsoft viruses.
>
In response to my complaint of weak rules out of box:
I have rtfm (INSTALL, USAGE, website). It states (step #7 in INSTALL file):
=
7. Now, you should be ready to send some test emails and ensure everything
works as expected. First, send yourself a test email that doesn't contain
I'm also curious about how this virus/worm operates. I'm presuming it's
infiltrating Outlook address books, but I could be wrong - since my server
is being hit with 100's of these messages, and that indicates possibly some
other source of data (for addresses).
I'm successfully blocking these w
If you are using Procmail (a good idea to use in tandem with SA anyway),
then see:
http://www.spamless.us/pub/procmail/virussnag
For a venerable, tried and true recipe for "snagging" viral emails. Even
though the recipe(s) has/have been around awhile, they still seem to work
even on the latest ge
--On Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:31 PM -0400 Matt Kettler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, you could write a custom rule or two to pick these off.
>
> A body rule something like this should do:
>
> body LOCAL_SVEN_WORM /\bThis is the latest version of security update\b/
> score LOCAL_SVEN
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:29:07PM -0400, Bert Rapp wrote:
> bit slipping by lately. Is it possible to add the current rules from
> 2.55 to the 2.43 rules. Or would it be better to just upgrade to 2.55?
you could probably move some of them over, but most rules require code
updates, so I'd just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 22 September 2003 11:16, Hannu Liljemark wrote:
> Does razor work now and does running spamassassin with the -D flag show
> razor in action?
No, I still don't have anything in the logs...
Here is my sendmail entry concerning spamassassin:
IN
Ok, I really should finish the write up on my setup one day :)
I was having the same difficulty as you mentioned. Every one of my users is
an alias to a procmail file.
alias file has entry like so:
loser1: "| /usr/bin/procmail /etc/procmailrcs/loser1.rc "
loser1.rc looks like so (over simplifi
Hi,
I just switched my setup from spamassassin to spamd/spamc, started spamd
with OPTIONS="-d -c -a -D" in my /etc/sysconfig/spamd file.
Redhat 8 spamd 2.55
I seem to have a permissions problem pointed out in /var/log/maillog:
- from log:
Sep 22 13:50:29 gizmo spamd[8211]: server start
I've been running spamassasssin 2.43 for quite some time. I've been
adding new rules to my own setup here and there to block the major
offenders that have been slipping through, but there has been quite a
bit slipping by lately. Is it possible to add the current rules from
2.55 to the 2.43 ru
Chris Barnes wrote:
> header LOCAL_PERLMX_TAG_100 /X-PerlMX=~ /\b Probability=100\%/
^
Just at a guess, what you want is something like:
header LOCAL_PERLMX_TAG_100 X-PerlMX=~ /\b Probability=100\%/
The header name isn't part of the regex.
-kgd
--
hm. I've l
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:32:41AM -0700, Tory M Blue wrote:
> I had a rich text document come thru and was flagged with
> "HTML has images with 600-800 bytes of words"
> The document had no images.
>
> What is being picked up?
without seeing the message, no one can answer this question for you.
First post, tried to find the answer
I had a rich text document come thru and was flagged with
"HTML has images with 600-800 bytes of words"
The document had no images.
What is being picked up?
Thanks
Tory
<|[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
This
Not sure if this helps but by lowering threshold (required_hits) to 4 rather
than 5, increasing FRIEND_AT_PUBLIC score FRIEND_AT_PUBLIC 3.0 and adding
filter for various attachments I don't commonly get via procmailrc:
:0 B:
* ^Content-Type:.*(application|audio|multipart)
* name=.*\.(pif|mp3|sr
Skylar Thompson wrote:
> I use the MIMEDefang and SpamAssassin plugins for sendmail on my
> FreeBSD 4.8 mail server. For some reason, SpamAssassin tags all
> messages as SpamAssassin tags all messages as spam, even when the
> score is low or sub-zero. I have required_hits set to 5 in
> sa-mimedefan
Can I just tack this on at the end of my user_prefs file?
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> Forrest Aldrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Has anyone filters for Spamassassin that will correctly identify this
> > virus? I'd like to score this one high so they are rejected (v
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 2:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Using Procmail with SpamAssassin for
> redirecting spam
> email...
>
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Well, after getting some gre
On Monday 22 September 2003 18:30 CET Philip Mak wrote:
> > 1.15. Does SpamAssassin filter email-borne viruses as well as spam?
> >
> > No. SpamAssassin is focussed on identifying spam, and not viruses.
> > The mechanism of scanning for viruses is different, and software
> > tailored for virus scan
Fine, so when I will have one directory, in that will all the users move the messages
that they want to teach sa-learn as spam, how can the sa-learn recognize the message?
Understand - how can the engine know, that "this" message is from user [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and another is from [EMAIL PROTECTE
See the link in my sig, and www.exit0.us
Chris Santerre
System Admin and SA Custom Rules Emporium keeper
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm
"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men." - Willy
Wonka
> -Original Message-
> From: L. D. Jame
Was it base 64 encoded? (double encoded?)
> -Original Message-
> From: Seelig, CD (Chris) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:03 PM
> To: 'Fred I-IS.COM'; Seelig, CD (Chris) ;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] OBFUSCATING comment not matching.
>
>
>
I have to completely agree with Robert here. I don't really have time to
teach the users about SA. While I'm sure this isn't for an ISP, but more
along the lines of a local sysadmin. It is better for them to tell me about
problems, and let me take care of it, less trouble.
Chris Santerre
System
Um...I would STRONGLY recommened someone think twice before using these
rules. I see them hitting on LOTS of legit emails. Also only the last rule
is a meta, so they will also score 1.00 on each hit, in addition to the meta
rule. It is a great start, but I think they need more tweaking.
just my 2
=?iso-8859-1?B?THVpcyBIZXJu4W4gT3RlZ3Vp?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I guess nobody noticed my other post, so here we go again:
> Since upgrading to SA-2.60-RC5, I'm getting this warnings in the maillog
> whenever spamd analizes a message:
> Sep 22 10:39:00 nahuel spamd[16955]: DCC -> ch
Luis Hernán Otegui
Administrador de Red
Facultad de Ciencias Exactas
UNLP
GNU-GPL: "May The Source Be With You..."
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:07:06PM -0400, Alicia Forsythe wrote:
> The following spam is making it through. When I test this same mail, it
> scores over 20 points. Why is it still getting through?
>
>
> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from 209.118.212.3
> ([200.167.37.247])
Hmm, something appears to have kindly converted the thing to clear text.
Cut and past from a 'view source' ..
Start Paste-
Wholesale Prescription
Medications
Our
doctors will
write you
a prescription
for free!
Buy Your
Prescription Meds
Online
See For
Yourself.
> 1.15. Does SpamAssassin filter email-borne viruses as well as spam?
>
> No. SpamAssassin is focussed on identifying spam, and not viruses.
> The mechanism of scanning for viruses is different, and software
> tailored for virus scanning is much much better at this task.
Well, I wouldn't expect Sp
I don't see any comments in this message, normally they start with and they must break a word for the rule to hit.
Frederic Tarasevicius
Internet Information Services, Inc.
Seelig, CD (Chris) wrote:
> The OBFUSCATING_COMMENT rule on our servers seem to miss a lot of
> mails that would appear (
The following spam is making it through. When I test this same mail, it
scores over 20 points. Why is it still getting through?
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 209.118.212.3
([200.167.37.247])
by ns1.mshs.com; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:13:40 -0400
Received: from [161
Can someone give me some help in understanding how to make a local
configuration file. I would use this information to curtail some of the
recent bombardment of the Microsoft virus that's currently happening.
I'm sure if someone will give me a sample that would perform some of the
fo
I'm receiving a flood of Microsoft viruses recently. I went to sleep
for 7 hours, and I came up with 145 new messages, almost all of them
Microsoft viruses.
SpamAssassin isn't catching these. I fed about 20 of them through
"spamassassin --report", but the Bayes filter still doesn't seem to
recogni
The OBFUSCATING_COMMENT rule on our servers seem to miss a lot of mails that
would appear (by eye)to match the regex (see included item, if it makes it
out of exchange intact). Any obvious reason for this?
The servers are using MIMEDefang to feed SA. Some emails do match, not all.
Possibly some d
> -Original Message-
> From: Kai Schaetzl
> Larry Gilson wrote on Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:13:35 -0400:
>
> > I agree with what you are saying about the MAIL FROM command.
> > It is easy enough to forge. However, I have only seen the header
> > From change and leave the MAIL FROM command
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:19:34 +0700 Robert Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition to the tests that were performed I'd like to see the effect
> on the overall score each test had.
>
> so instead of
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=0.6
> tests=IN_REP_TO,NO_REAL_NAME,REFERENC
A patch to do just this exists. Do a search through the SA bugzilla,
and you should be able to find it. I've got a copy of the patch
laying around somewhere, but it'll probably take me longer to find it
than a search on bugzila.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Robert Nicholson wrote:
> In addition to the
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> F-prot makes a very decent linux scanner on the commercial
> side and their
> small-business version covers most mailsever type usage at a
> reasonable
> price last time I checked. I heard some rumbling on the
>
Never mind I just learnt about always_add_report
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 08:19 PM, Robert Nicholson wrote:
In addition to the tests that were performed I'd like to see the
effect on the overall score each test had.
so instead of
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=0.6
tests=IN_RE
Larry Gilson wrote on Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:13:35 -0400:
> I agree with what you are saying about the MAIL FROM command. It is easy
> enough to forge. However, I have only seen the header From change and leave
> the MAIL FROM command as that configured in the user's profile.
What "user's profile"
At 07:30 AM 9/22/03 +0100, TUNC ERESEN wrote:
Hello, how could I fix this error ?
[root /root]# spamd -D
debug: Score set 0 chosen.
debug: running in taint mode? no
Could not create INET socket: Address already in use
IO::Socket::INET: Address already in use
Best Regards,
Sounds like spamd is alr
Hi list
In order to ensure that spamd is running all the time, I start it via
supervise from DJB's daemontools.
I wanted to use the -D option with spamd, but whenever I put that in its
/service/run script, supervise can't start spamd properly (results in
"supervice
Removing -D solves this and sp
Well, I guess nobody noticed my other post, so here we go again:
Since upgrading to SA-2.60-RC5, I'm getting this warnings in the maillog
whenever spamd analizes a message:
Sep 22 10:39:00 nahuel spamd[16955]: DCC -> check failed: Insecure directory
in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:38:40PM -0400, Pete O'Hara wrote:
Yes, I figured that if for some reason the 50k was too low that I should
endup with 100k, but I here I have 165k and this is what is confusing me.
0.000 0 165010 0 non-token data: ntokens
Well, what MTA are you using? If you use Sendmail, MIMEDefang, od
Spamass-Milter can do the trick, but you have to recompile Sendmail to
enable milters (with -DMILTER compile option, and build the Libmilter, in
the libmilter subdir from the distro
Regards,
Luis Hernán Ot
At 12:30 PM 9/22/03 +0200, Jim Knuth wrote:
Can I add an entry " blacklist_to [EMAIL PROTECTED]" ?? in my local.cf?
That there is no support for blacklist_to currently, however if my foggy
memory serves me right, it was being added to 2.60 somewhere along the line.
Most of the time if you want to
In addition to the tests that were performed I'd like to see the effect
on the overall score each test had.
so instead of
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=0.6
tests=IN_REP_TO,NO_REAL_NAME,REFERENCES,X_AUTH_WARNING,X_LOOP
version=2.55
I'd like to see (-1.0) etc after each test. so that I
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, drew wrote:
> Once you get the hang of it, its not too bad I personally find it much
> easier to configure then sendmail. Just be careful with the scripts, thats
> the easiest place to booger something. All I did to integrate SA into my
> Qmail install was to download the perl
This problem I'm seeing is because folks are using my domain when
forging emails.
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 06:49 PM, Ralf Guenthner wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject:
Hello,
Do not assume we know which version of SA you are using. This information
is really helpful.
Do you use Bayes? (is it trained with 200 spam & 200 ham)?
Do you use Auto-White List? (Possible reason for your troubles.)
You can fine tune the scores all you like, if you find a test which you
At 11:50 AM 9/22/03 +0200, =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Tom=E1=B9_Macek?= wrote:
a] I have virtual user accounts and all my users have their accounts in
the database. Their home directories/maildirs are somewhere in the /var.
I'd like to know, if will make all the users via the webmail interface
able to use th
At 06:35 AM 9/22/03 -0400, landy wrote:
do you recommend a virus scanner for linux
On the free-software side, look into clamAV.
F-prot makes a very decent linux scanner on the commercial side and their
small-business version covers most mailsever type usage at a reasonable
price last time I chec
At 11:36 PM 9/21/03 -0700, Mike Klein wrote:
Basically email consisted of an all caps subject "INCREASE YOUR PEN*S SIZE
NOW!!!" and several lines in the body with same text and a url to go to.
BTW, I didn't make the above typo in my email...I spelled the organ part
correctly.
Why is the rating s
On Sep 22, landy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> do you recommend a virus scanner for linux
You can try H+B EDV Antivir free edition (for non-commercial use):
http://www.hbedv.com/
Markus
--
__/"\
Markus Gaugusch \ /ASCII Ribbon Campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED] X Aga
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] 2.55 and FAILURE NOTICE's
> Hi, have any improvements been made to sort out spammers who are
> forging failure notices?
>
> From: Mail Deli
It's not abysmal. You just don't understand it. Most people get in
excess of 99% of spam with SpamAssassin. Isn't it great to know that
SpamAssassin is so well geared against false positives that you're
TRYING to send a spammy email and can't do it?
http://www.spamassassin.org/tests.html
Break
On Sep 22, Tom Meunier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spamstats does that.
Thanks! That's EXACTLY what I wanted :)
Markus
--
__/"\
Markus Gaugusch \ /ASCII Ribbon Campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED] X Against HTML Mail
/ \
--
Spamstats does that.
http://www.gryzor.com/tools/
> -Original Message-
> From: Markus Gaugusch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 5:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Better logging?
>
> Hi,
> I'm using spamassassin on our relay server (with pos
Hi, have any improvements been made to sort out spammers who are
forging failure notices?
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:05:39 PM Asia/Bangkok
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You also didn't say what version of SA, or anything about your setup (bayes
> enabled? awl enabled? is razor installed?, etc). Including some
> configuration information, at least a version, is helpful when asking this
> kind of question.
quite honest i am running a default installation of
Hallo Matt,
am Montag, 22. September 2003, 03:54:46, schriebst Du:
> At 09:07 PM 9/21/03 +0200, Jim Knuth wrote:
>>Hallo SA-List,
>>
>> how can I add an entry in the blacklist.
>>I mean a faked to-address (this is not mine)
>>The sender added like so?
>>--snip
>>spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
do you recommend a virus scanner for linux
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 22:31, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 12:34 PM 9/20/03 -0500, Philip Mak wrote:
> >Can SpamAssassin do something about these messages? There's been a big
> >flood of them recently, and they're all slipping through the filter.
>
> Well th
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin on our relay server (with postfix), and I would
like to associate the mail recipients with the messages from spamd, to do
some stats (who gets the most spam, etc.).
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to do this automated - the messages
from spamd don't contain enough in
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:38:57 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> you will also need something like qmail-scanner,
>> and need to patch and
>> recompile qmail to support calling another
>> queue...
>
>One appendum to that advice ...
>
>There are 4 great open source MTAs out there : Postfix, Exim, sendm
a] I have virtual user accounts and all my users have their accounts in the database.
Their home directories/maildirs are somewhere in the /var.
I'd like to know, if will make all the users via the webmail interface able to use the
sa-learn program for teaching: will the settings made by all of t
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
