On 2003-10-27 15:47:08 -0500, Dominique Bagnato wrote:
> I would like to know how could I install spamassassin on a Sun Solaris9 intel
> machine.
You have read INSTALL?
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-Str 5, 28359 Breme
On 2003-10-25 19:22:56 -0700, lindsay adams wrote:
> is this something i can do in spamassassin? or is there a procmail way
> of doing things?
How about switching between two user_prefs with different
required_hits via cron?
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROT
On 2003-10-20 15:37:46 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Lets say I can track the spammer to the source. What avenue do we have to
Forget it.
The systems sending the mail are trojaned systems (e.g. on cable
modems).
> stop them? Should I work with local legislation next? Don't flame me on this
The
On 2003-10-19 11:44:46 -0400, Chris wrote:
> What I'm struggling with, and I think others are too, is the lack of
> documentation in obvious areas, i.e. on the product homepage.
Fire up a browser. Point it to http://www.spamassassin.org . Look
to the upper right of the screen. Notice it says "docu
On 2003-10-10 07:14:56 -0700, Jeff Lasman wrote:
> And one more thing... though I don't see it mentioned, I'm presuming
> from the sa-learn manpage that I don't have to remove the already
> existing SpamAssassin headers from either the spam or the ham; that
> sa-learn will ignore them. Is that
On 2003-10-07 16:23:36 +1300, Nick Jenkin wrote:
> What would i need to stick in the user_prefs file, to delete all emails
> detected as spam?
RTFM: http://tinyurl.com/q0z7
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-Str 5, 283
On 2003-10-07 09:01:29 -0400, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
> I am seeing problems with 2.60 on a FreeBSD
> server, using exim as my mta. Emails are
> being tagged as having the required hits
> but are not being tagged as spam. Here is
> a header. Help would be appreciated.
[...]
> X-Spam-Level: **
>
On 2003-10-06 22:11:24 +0200, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> Or wait for 2.61 which will remove these directories from the PATH
> automagically :)
What's the ETA for 2.61?
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-Str 5, 28359 Bremen,
On 2003-10-06 15:15:42 -0400, Landy wrote:
> this email has a no but it scored 5.0 which is the default
> any idea why the status is no?
RTFA
4.97 is reported as 5.0, but lower than 5.0
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-S
On 2003-10-03 17:01:08 -0400, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> Isn't there a page somewhere that posts these recipes as the Virii
> come out? I realize this is starting to get a little OT, but I know a
> good number of people here are fairly procmail savvy.
Search the procmail list archives.
The procmail
On 2003-10-01 13:26:52 -0500, Your Own ISP .com wrote:
> Since there seems to be a ton of activity on this list and near zero to do
> with SA on Windows, I have created list specific to SpamAssassin on W32
> platforms.
Good! Now please all of you who use Outlook, can't quote and send
HTML mails pl
On 2003-10-01 16:05:20 +0200, Mrvka Andreas wrote:
> where do i define what should happen with spams?
> move to specific folder, get deleted, etc. ?
man procmail
You might want to read the FAQ, btw.
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom Gmb
On 2003-10-01 02:36:52 +, Peter Richards wrote:
> About 95% of the emails are from AOL. Is this something that SpamAssasin
> can do ? I do have about 20 "valid" email addresses for the domain, it all
Yes.
http://www.exit0.us/index.php/VirusBounceRules
Best regards
Martin
--
On 2003-10-01 07:34:32 -0500, Mike Carlson wrote:
> How do I set up Sendmail to reject email with a high score or forward email
> to a local mailbox if it is within a certain range of score?
man procmail
Best regards
Martin
PS: http://www.lemis.com/email/email-tidiness.html
--
On 2003-09-29 11:53:34 +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
> after upgrading to 2.60 via CPAN, the AWL is not migrated.
> auto-whitelist just sits there and SA is using new created
> auto-whitelist.{dir|pag} . Is there any way to migrate the AWLs
> by hand?
Well?
Best regards
Martin
--
On 2003-09-30 17:33:54 +0200, Ole Nomann Thomsen wrote:
> All of the waiting spamd-processes appears to be in the run-queue, thus
> driving the load-factor way above 200. (At which point the command-line
spamd(1):
-m num, --max-children num Allow maximum num children
Use it, otherwise s
On 2003-09-30 13:43:59 -0400, Sean McCrohan wrote:
> I've lowered the maximum message size and I'm running spamd with '-m 3'
> to lower the number of simultaneous threads. What else can I do to
> reduce the processing overhead?
3 ist large for old machines. Use it only if you have enough
memory.
Hi,
after upgrading to 2.60 via CPAN, the AWL is not migrated.
auto-whitelist just sits there and SA is using new created
auto-whitelist.{dir|pag} . Is there any way to migrate the AWLs
by hand?
Best regards
Martin
--
Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however
obj
[Please limit your line length to <=70 chars/line]
On 2003-01-15 22:42:07 -, Stephane wrote:
> exists today disappears ? With opensource you cannot have a
> contractual engagement to provide support or updates, nor can
> you really know the roadmap for a product and what is planned
> for futur
On 2003-01-08 13:33:55 -0500, info wrote:
> Im trying to get off this list I cant seem to find a way?
It's in the headers AND at the bottom of every mail you get from
the list. :-{
HTH. HAND.
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
---
On 2003-01-07 13:51:49 -0500, Jerry Rasmussen wrote:
> user. Does anyone have a suggestion on how best to accomplish this?
You could use procmail at the server.
Best regards
Martin
PS: _Please_ learn to quote.
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
--
On 2003-01-07 10:12:50 -0500, Rose, Bobby wrote:
> or plan on introducing restrictions. For example: if the open-source
> project comes up with or adds some new algorithm of detection does that
> automatically become NAI property which ends up in their commercial
> product (like bayes in 2.50)!?
On 2003-01-06 15:46:59 -0500, Jerry Rasmussen wrote:
> How do you configure SpamAssassin to return spam to the sender?
You don't. Google for bouncing spam and get a clue.
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
---
On 2003-01-04 12:40:38 +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> I know this is probably not very relevant with 2.5 release so soon.
> Anyway - see the attached message. Would have scored even higher (8.7)
> with 2.43 default scores.
Tell them to generate valid dates and use a senders n
On 2003-01-02 18:20:36 -, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> Perhaps it's just an old version of date? Mine looks OK:
>
> $ date -R
> Thu, 02 Jan 2003 18:19:46 +
>
> $ date --version
> date (coreutils) 4.5.3
date (GNU sh-utils) 2.0
SuSE 8.0 :-(
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.
On 2002-12-31 12:03:57 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> Next, I scanned 482 spams that snuck through SA and reached my mailbox
> over the last three months (ie, scored < 7.0 in SA). That took 21.89
7 is way too much. I've set the score to 3, use some white- and
blacklists and adjusted some scores and
On 2002-12-31 10:50:57 -0500, Dan Schwartz wrote:
> :0fw
:0fw: spamc.lock
> * < 10
> | spamc
Otherwise each mail will spawn a new instance of procmail and
spamc immediately. That means 100 instances if 100 mails arrive
at a time. Makes for a nice DOS. :-)
Best regards
Martin
--
On 2002-12-30 11:56:14 -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Martin Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your date is wrong:
> > Mon, 30 Dez 2002 19:18:48 +0100
> > Note the sign before the timezone.
>
> Umm, so is yours.
>
> >From RFC 2822:
&
On 2002-12-30 17:10:58 +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:08:32 0100
Your date is wrong:
Mon, 30 Dez 2002 19:18:48 +0100
Note the sign before the timezone.
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
-
On 2002-12-21 16:00:34 -0300, Jose M.Herrera wrote:
> what mean the last two columns in the sintaxis of whitelist_from_recv?
This is explained in the man page.
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
-
On 2002-12-21 11:24:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This brings me to a newbie question. If we're running spamd, is there any
> need to even have the spamassassin script? All the man pages seem to
> indicate that spamc is a drop-in replacement for the script if you're
> running spamd. I jus
On 2002-12-17 14:50:08 -0500, Administration Dept. wrote:
> We are running SpamAssassin server wide via procmail and sendmail through
> /etc/procmailrc . We are having a serious load problem even using the
Are you locking spamc in procmail for each mail? If not you will
get a new instance of spam
On 2002-12-16 16:37:41 -0800, Somik Raha wrote:
># isn't bigger than a few k and working with big messages can bring
># SpamAssassin to its knees.
>:0fw
Make that
:0fw: spamc.lock
otherwise for each spam procmail and spamassassin are started.
Makes for a nice DOS when you get more
On 2002-12-16 18:36:47 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> You're right, there's no blacklist_from_rcvd.. but do you really need/want
> such precautions there?
But unblacklist_from_rcvd would make sense. Please?
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
---
On 2002-12-17 04:17:15 +0100, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> Martin Schroeder wrote:
> > eval:check_for_from_domain_in_received_headers('ebay.de', 'true') doesn't
> > work (with --local). :-(
>
> Did you search for 'ebay.de' in your mail? This s
On 2002-12-15 20:16:58 +0100, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> Martin Schroeder wrote:
>
> > header GENUINE_EBAY_DE_RCVD
>eval:check_for_from_domain_in_received_headers('ebay.de', 'true')
> > describe GENUINE_EBAY_DE_RCVD Message from eBay.de
> >
On 2002-12-10 09:32:54 -0500, rODbegbie wrote:
> Adam Henry wrote:
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The "From:" header doesn't end with @ebay.com, therefore the eBay checks
> weren't performed.
I have the same problem with ebay.de .
How does one write a rule GENUINE_EBAY_DE_RCVD?
header GENUINE
On 2002-12-04 13:22:04 +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> spamd; done". And what do you do when it decides to gobble all available
> memory?
You can run it ulimited.
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
On 2002-11-29 15:04:29 +0100, Erik van der Meulen wrote:
> Hi - I do not know much about your exact setup, but I have all my mail
> delivered by uucp, processed consequently by sendmail and procmail after
> which SA filters it with AWL...
Yes, same here. But I'm sure your mail has travelled to som
On 2002-11-29 11:36:19 +, Justin Mason wrote:
>those doco pages are generated from the
> CVS version, rather than 2.43.
Could that be changed please? It's irritating. :-)
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
[SA 2.43]
Hi,
it seems AWL doesn't work with mails delivered only by uucp.
--
Nov 29 11:48:11 artcom8 spamd[16513]: debug: failed to find originating IP in 'from
artcom7 by artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de with uucp (Smail3.2 #1) id m18Hifx-001WuFa; Fri, 29
Nov 2002 11:47:13 +0100 (CET) fr
On 2002-11-27 16:30:03 +0100, Martin Schröder wrote:
> somehow blocked before reaching spamd. Or is there something
> wrong with my configuration?
Yes. spamd was only listening on 127.0.0.1, not on the network.
Now spamc is looking for ~/.spamassasin/ on the host, not on the
client... :-(
Best r
Hi,
I've got spamc/spamd 2.43 successfully running on one host.
However when I try to allow connections to spamd from one machine
on the network, it can not connect. Since I get no output from
spamd for the tries even with -D, I think the connections are
somehow blocked before reaching spamd. Or is
On 2002-11-25 02:29:35 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> Doesn't matter. If the sender address was false information, then they
> can't appeal the blacklisting (and I don't want them to), but I'll stop
> getting spam from that address (and typically the addresses have been
> repetitive). What matters
On 2002-11-25 00:15:11 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 24, 2002, at 17:19 US/Pacific, Martin Schroeder wrote:
> >Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.
> >
>
> Well, if google says it, it must be true! :-)
>
> I automatically bounce spam wit
On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
> explaining how I bounce spam instead. I bounce
Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/
On 2002-11-20 16:00:02 +0100, Malte Gell wrote:
> So, how can I get a plain text list of the addresses added to the
> black/whitelist ?
You need an application that can parse dbm files.
It's better to black/whitelist via entries in user_prefs -- they
are also easier to delete.
Best regards
47 matches
Mail list logo
