Re: [SAtalk] Need a rule for IE Exploit

However On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 03:51:17PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This may be redundant to the existing rule: > 2.4 HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST URI: Uses %-escapes inside a URL's hostname That rule checks for an %-escape without preceding whitespace. There's a comment from Theo about # Have

Re: [SAtalk] FROM_AND_TO_SAME Rule does not seem to work

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:13:27PM -0800, Morris Jones wrote: > I think I solved this problem by removing my email address from the > AWL. No need for it to be in there. > > spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED] The developers are still pondering it, however for me, the pat

Re: [SAtalk] unable to disable AWL

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:02:43AM +0100, matthias zeichmann wrote: > Hello list! > > I just cant seem to be able to disable AWL with spamassassin. > The rationale behind that is that there is a lot of forged mail around > recently (virii, trojans) that makes its way with a negative AWL > scoring.

Re: [SAtalk] SA and tagging/removing

On Wednesday 17 September 2003 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When I first saw the SA, I marveled, why SA cannot delete the mail. SA > can't delete the message. The possibility of the message deletion > depends on the MTA you are using. If you use procmail for local > delivery, you can teach the

[SAtalk] Message-ID = unknown ?

I'm testing 2.60-rc3 out as a front end to a Lotus Notes server. That server is sending out message IDs with a short RHS, of the form <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Spamasssassin always reports these as "checking message (unknown)" in its log output, although it seems to recognise longer Message IDs wh

Re: [SAtalk] System goes down

Kandji Développeur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The story : > linux RedHat 7.3 - kernel 2.4.18#3 on smp system (2xPII) > perl 5.6.1 > spamassassin version 2.55 > postfix 1.1.12-0.7 > > 1) The system had been running for 90 days. > 2) I installed spamassassin AND pop-before-smtp the same day > 3) Th

[SAtalk] Performance with large whitelists ?

I'v been reading with interest the recent thread on regular expression performance. Has anyone ever done any performance figures on, for instance, large whitelists though ? A client of ours wants to whitelist all their regular correspondents. Sounds reasonable except that there may be over 1