Upgrade to 1.14.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Arpi
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] new chicnpox --lint failed
Hi,
After upgrading chichekpox to Version 1.11, spamassassin
I'll never complain about my old PII-400 taking 8.5 seconds to process a
message through spamd again.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Thomas Kinghorn
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 4:32 AM
To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
Subject:
Since they rarely declare the TRUE country they're sending from, I'd
probably use the blackholes.us rbls. And probably host them locally to
reduce DNS lookup time.
http://www.blackholes.us/docs/usage.html
It only has zones for argentina, brazil, china, hong kong, japan, korea,
malaysia,
Interesting to me mostly because spamc/spamd by default won't even look
at a 1.2mb email. I'm interested in how/where that happened.
-tom
-Original Message-
After we upgraded to SA 2.61 as was suggested by this list we
had a mail-machine crash again when spamd expanded beyond
Pyzor and BigEvil nailed both of them. The second one hit a whole ton of
RBLs also.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Geoff Soper
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:18 PM
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: *
Start spamd with -D debug options and then tail -f /var/log/maillog
|grep -i bigevil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of SAtalk Mail User
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] BigEvil.cf
Before you play with the settings, consider updating to the current
version of SpamAssassin. You're probably using 2.44; the current
version is 2.61. At this point, that much spam getting through would be
expected behavior.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of AltGrendel
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:54 AM
To: SA-Talk
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] importing spam from exchange users for sa-learn?
Wasn't there a big issue with public folders stripping off
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hoyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:41 AM
To: Tom Meunier; AltGrendel; SA-Talk
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] importing spam from exchange users for sa-learn?
Interesting... what did you set on exchange to make it do
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of AltGrendel
We're running Exchange 2k that was upgraded from 5.5, which
was upgraded from ...(you get the idea). Anyway, I'm still
seeing the old header style and I'm wondering if it's not an
What would differentiate the proposed public corpus from the public
corpus at http://www.spamassassin.org/publiccorpus/?
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Denenberg
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:10 AM
To: [EMAIL
http://www.wot.no-ip.com/cgi-bin/detoken.pl
Most of the gibberish I see is encoded tracking information. I plugged
in my domain name to the little script thingy, saved the .cf file, and
it catches 'em like crazy.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Guentert Matthias
I have successfully installed spamassassin on my linux server which
runs postfix as mta. Our Exchange 2000 server pops the emails from the
linux server which stands in the dmz.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kenneth Porter
http://www.securitysage.com/guides/postfix_uce.html
I just got some mail bounced by an ISP using this setup and
after reviewing the details, it looks like the system is set
up
You'll want to look at http://www.exit0.us/index.php/MaskedWordList
Take a gander at the link to Chris' Mediocre ObfuScript, which is soon
(I hear) to be upgraded to Chris' Somewhat Adequate ObfuScript.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
You've just described how spamassassin works.
So I'm pretty certain the you don't want to sit at a command line,
saving your mails to text files, and checking them one-by-one. What is
it that you would LIKE to do, really? Chances are someone's already
doing it. Do you have a non-*n?x
No. How would this be a bug? By definition it would have to be a
custom rule, since you've specified that it be user-specific and custom
header specific. Such a rule would work for nobody in the universe but
Wolfgang Rohdewald.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
IIRC, bl.spamcop.net isn't supposed to resolve. Try running an RBL
query against it instead of trying to resolve it.
Surely it has to resolve to *something* - the NS records have
gone as well.
Tony
No, it doesn't have to. When you query against
The CASHCASHCASH rule tests for the string '$$$' not for the phrase
CASH! CASH! CASH!
The ADDRESSES_ON_CD rule caught almost as much ham when tested against a
half-million message corpus as it did spam.
The BLANK_LINES_90_100 caught MORE ham than it did spam.
Since I'm stupid, you'll want to test this thoroughly.
In 20_body_checks.cf you'll find:
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 eval:check_razor2_range('11','50')
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 eval:check_razor2_range('51','100')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 net
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100
VSNL is, I believe, the largest ISP in India or at least in the top 2.
I'd tread lightly on blocking them if you do business with India at all.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Santerre
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003
Matt, thanks for this. It's a great resource. However, I'm wondering
why the following were scored as zero and thus don't have numbers to
support their efficacy or lack thereof:
0.000 0. 0.0.500 0.110.00 RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK
0.000 0. 0.0.500 0.11
No, but you can enable it if you like. Their web site tells you how.
Just save this text as /etc/mail/spamassassin/something.cf
http://www.ahbl.org/using/spamassassin.txt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nigel Featherston
Sent:
If it's already 100% sure that it's spam, how is it helpful to train it
that it's spam? It's not like it's going to be 110% sure that it's
spam. It's already trained!
Not trying to be a wise-ass, I've just seen this question come up fairly
often, and can't wrap my head around it.
-tom
Example 1. Use spamc/spamd, it defaults to only scanning messages under
250k and you can change that limit with spamc's -s switch.
Example 2. What version of Spamassassin are you running? There's a
whole ton of tests based upon the ratio of image to text.
-tom
John, if you run the email through
Spamassassin -tD mail.txt |more then you should be able to see which
tokens it's finding, and the weight it's giving. Perhaps that
particular email contains tokens which have been found in several
learnable hams as well. If you save the output at the initial
-m 15 will limit it to 15 spamd instances. Give that a shot.
I'm kinda surprised by how quickly this happens, though.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dennis Duval
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay, this is the sixth copy of this email that I've gotten. Is it me,
is it sourceforge, or is it maybelline?
(Yeah, I know it's sourceforge, but I wanted to kvetch)
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Trudeau
Sent:
Sweet. 27 hours for that to show up. (And looking at headers it's the
ISP anyway, heh)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom Meunier
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] IP Blocks
Even on good mail? Or only on Spam? Because when I see spam, I'm 99%
sure it's spam, and a well-trained Bayes engine would be 99% sure also.
If it's on good mail that you're seeing 99%, every time, then your
database is screwed up and you should start over.
-Original Message-
From:
Sorry, I should've left a note. I had brought it to the printers to get
a banner made, and thought I'd take it out for a nice ice cream sundae
too. It's back now, though.
I put it at http://www.spamassassin.org/tests.html
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
I have a pretty
comprehensive (and paranoid) list of blacklisted from
addresses that I *know* will only send spam.
Is there any way I configure SA such that these will be used
to train the bayes?
Make a custom header rule for the domain, and score it with a crazy
amount of points. The
Train Bayes with sa-learn --ham using a sizable representative sample of the shipping
company's known good email.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Håkon Nilsen (Exinet AS)
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 6:21 AM
To: [EMAIL
That's right. It seems weird, doesn't it? But basically, that setting
tells SA that the filenames are /usr/local/share/bayes_*
To achieve what you think it should be, you'd want to do bayes_path
/usr/local/share/bayes/bayes - funny as that sounds.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
-Original Message-
I'm Linux SysAdmin at the company I work for, I always
install everything from source.
A colleague, a Windows SysAdmin, installs everything on his
Linux boxes from RPMs.
What does that tell you? :)
Tells me we need a larger sample size. I'm a Windows
It's arguable whether that will unsubscribe them, or confirm to the
spammer that they've scored a direct hit, and make your users a more
valuable spam target. Think about it: Is someone who just hijacked a
Taiwanese elementary school's mail server to send out necrophilia
pornography with forged
Message-
From: Robert Leonard III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:00 PM
To: Tom Meunier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Bayes not working.. On System Wide SA
Thanks for the tip.. I guess it was an addressing/permission
issue.. I see now, when I
-H should list a directory other than the default home directory of the
user that's calling spamc. Else, don't use it at all.
-m5 should be -m 5 I believe.
Other than that, Idunno. Feel free to ignore me.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you call SpamAssassin? Please be specific with your answer. :)
If you use spamc/spamd it defaults to only scanning up to 250kb,
configurable with the -s switch. No config file necessary, you set it
as a switch on the line that you call spamc with.
Okay, are you running spamassassin as root? If not, you'll probably
want to specify bayes_path in your local.cf - so that when you do a
spamassassin -D it reflects the ACTUAL location of the Bayes databases.
Then run it again, and see if you actually have zero spams in the
database. It will tell
So I'm loving the rules http://spamhammers.nxtek.net/ that Jennifer
Wheeler wrote , but I'm up against a few (philosophical?) questions, and
would like to invite discussion.
I've noticed that about 95% of the time when these rules are hit,
they're listed as BAYES_99. In this case, should I even
Call it with spamd and limit the number of spamd processes with the -m
switch.
For comparison sake, I have a light-volume postfix/spamd gateway server
that handles about 1000 messages per hour during business hours. It's a
PII-400 with 512mb RAM.
I can't give you spamstats time statistics
-Original Message-
From: Roger Merchberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ ]
2) Is there any way of setting up logging to know which rules
are being hit which ones aren't without grabbing all of the
message headers? I'd like to be able to profile which rules
are being hit the
top-posting
Okay, so SpamAssassin is working fine. The mail is properly marked up
when it leaves SpamAssassin at the original place SpamAssassin is
called. Then the next process is what's marking it as 0.0. It almost
looks as if it's running spamassassin twice, once on the original mail
and
Hi Doug,
The answer to your question varies depending on what version of
SpamAssassin you're using, and what RBL's you're seeing scores on. This
is crucial information to answering your question.
Since this is a well-documented issue with versions before 2.60, I'm
going to assume that, and that
top posting again (I must be annoying SOMEBODY)
Hi Oz,
Which machine(s) have spamassassin? I know domini does, but does siena
also have spamassassin? That would cause this behavior.
-tom
- headers -
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:25, you wrote:
It's difficult to see
-Original Message-
From: O-Zone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:40, Tom Meunier wrote:
top posting again (I must be annoying SOMEBODY) Hi Oz, Which
machine(s) have spamassassin? I know domini does, but does
siena also
have spamassassin
6 asterisks indicates it's not quite 7.0. Probably 6.9something. You
could add up the scores to verify if you really like, but that's what's
happening.
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=7.0 required=7.0
tests=BAYES_10,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,
Sounds like Postini. Or Messagelabs. postini dot com or messagelabs
dot com.
Messagelabs is using a modified SpamAssassin, iirc.
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Vanasco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk]
It's the first option on the list if you type spamd --help
-Original Message-
From: Rob Mangiafico [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] spamd and -a option in 2.60?
In the 2.60 docs, the -a auto whitelist
What version of SpamAssassin? You can implement Razor, DCC, RBLs, and
train your Bayes up to 200 each of spam/ham to augment the tools at SA's
disposal.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: David M. Carney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:09 PM
To: [EMAIL
You need to either upgrade to 2.60 or remove your Osirusoft and orbs
tests tests as specified in the article at http://news.spamassassin.org.
Those blocklists are dead and are waiting until your timeout.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Jim Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday,
So you're saying that when you cut and paste the body of a spam into an
email, removing the spammer's headers, SpamAssassin doesn't rate your
headers as spammy as the spammer's headers? And you include only the
spammy body, and it trips off all the spammy body checks? That's to be
expected,
Look, there's a poll for this at
http://news.spamassassin.org/modules.php?op=modloadname=NS-Pollsfile=index
Is it inappropriate to suggest that we see who's got the biggest thingy over there?
-tom
---
This sf.net email is sponsored
I've been able to re-discover pyzor servers (and it always winds up with the same
server) and get pyzor working for a couple hours before the couldn't grok response
'...TimeoutErrors' begins again. I've disabled Pyzor and just written it off to my
own ignorance. Basically once it starts not
-Original Message-
From: Malte S. Stretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and 3 ways to
attach a complete message (as sent by the POP3 server) to a new
message.
Could you tell me the way to do it with Outlook 2000? I
searched for that
option on a customers box today, without
You could probably make some of that happen yourself by implementing some of the
blacklists at http://www.blackholes.us
See http://www.blackholes.us/docs/usage.html#spamassassin for usage info.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September
Why not just go get 80 spams from the public corpus? It'll be not optimal, but it'll
be better than forcing it with 120.
http://spamassassin.org/publiccorpus/
-Original Message-
From: Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 10:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AFAICT you'd do
auto_whitelist_factor 0
use_bayes 0 will disable bayes, not the (unfortunately named - it's as much an auto
blacklist as an auto whitelist, innit?) auto whitelisting feature.
I hope if I'm mistaken somebody will jump in and correct me. I remember this being
asked a few months
SpamAssassin doesn't block mail. All it does is mark it up for content.
That mail seems to have been marked up for spam content correctly.
Therefore, your problem is not with SpamAssassin but rather with the
product that you've configured to quarantine mail.
-Original Message-
From:
Go check your filesystem rights on those file directories. That's happened to me
before, and I was waiting for it to happen this time too, and mysteriously, it didn't.
My gateway boxen must be contagious. :)
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Steve Heggood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the main thrust of his answer was that Google Is Your Friend.
http://www.gryzor.com/tools/
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Jim Knuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
First hit after googling for spamstats and perl:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/spamstats/?topic_id=245
thank you,
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 postfix),
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
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 the same
Why, Google of course!
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/spamass-milt/
Yes, it works with qmail.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Tom Macek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Autodeleting spam based on
Oh pooh. Ignore me. Of course Patrick is right; it doesn't support qmail.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:51 AM
To: 'Tom Macek'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Autodeleting spam based on score
without deleting all spam
Why
Absolutely.
www.exit0.us/index.php/VirusBounceRules
among other things.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Ivar Magne Auestad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Question for the FAQ
-Original Message-
From: Gary Funck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:38 AM
To: Spamassassin List
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Scan Message Max Size
Define safe - I stick with the default of 250kb and have
never had
an issue with it. I can't see receiving
SpamAssassin doesn't bounce mail, period. If you want it to bounce mail, please do
so. If you don't, don't. Further documentation in your MTA's man pages.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Regis Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL
skip_rbl_checks 1
#even though they're default if installed anyway...
use_razor2 1
use_pyzor 1
use_dcc 1
You've disabled the Osirusoft tests, I hope. Those hit everything on the Internet.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Covington, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
http://blackholes.us/
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kiem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Recognising dynamic rr.com IPs
I'm getting sick of all the spam that comes from rr.com and
have been blocking
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 10:19:37 +1100
-tom
-Original Message-
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 10:19:37 +1100
-tom
-Original Message-
http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html
How can you tell it only ran one test? I'd say it ran all of the tests
but only hit on one of them.
What rule do you feel your example spams broke, that SpamAssassin missed
tagging? The only answer to spams like your example is Bayes, RBLs, and
distributed checksums such as Razor/Pyzor/DCC, if
If there's no BAYES_ test whatsoever, it isn't thinking it's ham. It's not saying
anything whatsoever. Probably based upon the fact that it didn't have sufficient
tokens or something.
Please note that Bayes doesn't use keywords. It uses tokens, which may or may not
resemble words. Also note
I'm mulling over whether to make some SA rules for some of the more common urban
legends and virus hoaxes. Has anyone played with this, that is willing to share
experiences?
-tom
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to
You are correct. It needs 68 more spams.
-Original Message-
From: James Herschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Not sure if my Bayesian filter is adding to
the score
...
[snip]
Sep 9 10:25:55
if you run spamassassin -D --lint it will show you a dbug line:
debug: bayes corpus size: nspam = [number], nham = [number]
-Original Message-
From: James Herschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Plus I'd just like to know how much further I
have to go before the Bayes kicks in
Yes, you're not running spamd as root, but you ran spamassassin -D --lint as root.
Note the different paths to the bayes databases in your output.
-Original Message-
From: James Herschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 3:07 PM
To: Tom Meunier; [EMAIL
1. It *is* the case indeed. Look at your email. Since Osirusoft has
blacklisted the entire internet, every one would have that test flagged,
wouldn't it? Yes. It doesn't, does it? No. Setting it to 0 disables
the test.
2. Even if it *did* run the test, if a test were to score zero points,
only half joking Feed it 1400 more?
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kiem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes I don't expect it to activate in SA until then but how can you get
it to over 200 when I feed it 134 emails but the db says it
only learned
19?
currently I am looking for options on how to speed up
spamassassin 2.54.
Hi Jochen,
I've been considering the idea proferred at
http://www.advosys.ca/papers/printable/postfix-filtering.html
under A Word About Performance
quoted
The method shown here is an easy and reliable way to filter
http://useast.spamassassin.org/tests.html
You've got negative scores all over that thing. Add them up.
-Original Message-
From: landy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 5:31 AM
To: SA
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] why so low
i have been
There are already tests for SpamCop and NJABL:
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
RCVD_IN_NJABL
X_NJABL_OPEN_PROXY
X_NJABL_DIALUP
You can see what blacklists are tested by default, and their assigned scores, at
http://www.spamassassin.org/tests.html
For examples of rules for alternative blacklists, see
Hi Dave,
You've got two different things happening here.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Kliczbor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Bayes filter and autolearning
| X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1
Hi Dave, hope I can help here beyond parroting what I've read played with...
On this one, it's because autolearn learns the message pre-Bayes
test. Without your Bayes_90, that message scored under 1.9 points,
and so it was autolearned. The other reason that applies here is
explained
You'll likely find that those words wouldn't be considered interesting
tokens - and if they do, they will also be considered interesting
tokens for all the ham you receive discussing these topics. The
bayesian engine doesn't simply grab words; it grabs tokens, and it grabs
them in some really (to
Because without a few hundred messages, it would be completely and utterly useless?
It would be like meeting an airline pilot who was 5'7 tall and had a scar on his left
cheek and wore his hat backwards. Bayes would think that scars on left cheeks were as
reliable an indicator of
-Original Message-
From: Ron Gilbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because without a few hundred messages, it would be
completely and utterly
useless?
Yes, i do understand that. I guess my complaint is that I
would have rather
it started working and been somewhat useless (like
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,
I don't need to sa-learn it.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Jon Gabrielson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:03 PM
To: Tom Meunier; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring
Is there a way to change this behavior
http://www.spamassassin.org/tests.html
It adds points to the total score, as in any other SA test. See the RAZOR2_CHECK and
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE rules.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Burkhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Don't delete your user's mail. Just mark it and let them make rules client-side.
If you've an intermediary gateway that can do some content filtering, you can use that
to delete or quarantine especially high-scoring spam.
2. See (3.)
3.
http://lawmonkey.org/anti-spam.html
Oh yeah: If I were running Imail (I don't, but I play a person who does on TV) I'd at
least give a cursory glance to IMGATE.
http://imgate.meiway.com/
-Original Message-
From: John B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I must be doing something stupid, or have something misconfigured. My
server times out on Pyzor tests about 90% of the time, and on DCC tests
about 5-10% of the time. I've set the timeouts to 10 seconds. My
average message analysis time due to these tests taking so long is 13-15
seconds. It
Keep in mind when you modify 20_head_tests.cf it'll be overwritten with
each subsequent upgrade of SpamAssassin. Your local.cf won't.
-Original Message-
From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:06 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris,
A google of [reg2rule] and [reg2rule.pl] brings up nada. Throw me a bone?
fwiw, I blacklist 'em when they come in, and my average spam score is up in the 40s.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:12 AM
To:
http://www.exit0.us/index.php/VirusBounceRules
-Original Message-
From: Steve Combs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Sobig virus blocking
Can someone help me write a rule to block the sobgi
-Original Message-
From: Covington, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:33 PM
To: Tom Meunier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] exchange and IMAP Public Folder messages
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
