At 04:18 27/10/2004, Pierre Thomson wrote:
One of our relays got 8500 name-guessing spams yesterday, up from an
average of 2500 per day last week. So far today we have seen 6600, and
the day isn't half over. If our MTA weren't checking recipients against
our userlist, SA would be struggling
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:21:59 -0700, Jeff Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63?
Version 3 stops different spam than 2.63, in my experience so far.
E.g. it's better at catching the drug spam but not as good at the
earn cash for making phone
At 06:21 PM 10/28/2004, Jeff Ramsey wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63? I'm running
2.63 and my friend who owns an ISP just upgraded to ver 3, and he claims
that 2.63 stopped more spam.
As far as an out of the box configuration goes, I'd say 3.0 is orders of
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:19:13 -0700, Bart Schaefer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:21:59 -0700, Jeff Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63?
Version 3 stops different spam than 2.63, in my experience so far.
E.g. it's better
Loren Wilton wrote:
That rule sounds suspeciously like one I wrote a long time ago, and
once posted here. If it is, then the problem is probably the
double-quoting in the display name of the To line, or the fact that
the display name happens to match the email address rather than
something like
Greetings,
I'm trying to investigate whether SpamAssassin can be used in a non-spam
application that we're trying to build. I've read lots of stuff on the
website but I'm still not sure. I thought I would ask you, the experts.
The application needs to determine whether a certain domain name is
Thanks for the help and info. I'll tell my friend why his 3.0 install
is letting more spam through and he has autolearn turned on, so his
should get better.
As for me, I'll upgrade to at least version 2.64. I use lots of the
custom rules - antidrug.cf, etc. If I upgrade SA to 3.0, can I still
Chris Santerre wrote:
Number of hits for the bigevil file in Oct: 109328
Um.I'm not updating it anymore! Haven't in quite a while.
Tell your RDJ script to stop asking for updates :)
You should probably put some innocuous error in that file that will
cause anyone running --lint to
Chris
may I suggest you change BE at the top (revision section), so it gives
notice of BE's imminent death on 1 Dec (for example).
Then repeat this every week so people might actually read the update
email from RDJ and do something about it!
On 1 Dec remove all the entries and merely have the
Hello All!
I have a linux box with CommunigatePro + spamassasin.
All work fine, but sometimes I have failed message, exmaple:
==
Received: from lala.ru ([1.1.1.1] verified)
by lalala.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5)
with SMTP id 2916390; Fri, 29 Oct 2004
I've suddenly started getting problems with SpamAssassin timing out. I
upgraded to Mail::SpamAssassin 3.0.1 first with no luck.
Initially the timeouts were in the bayes store so I turned
bayes_auto_expire off and now the timeout has moved to Message.pm.
Oct 29 10:59:14 linux amavis[28527]:
Martin Hepworth wrote:
Chris
may I suggest you change BE at the top (revision section), so
it gives notice of BE's imminent death on 1 Dec (for example).
Then repeat this every week so people might actually read the
update email from RDJ and do something about it!
On 1 Dec remove all
Kevin
I use MailScanner rather than Amavi-new, but...
have you tried sa-learn --force-expire to clear out the bayes info..
any RBL's in there??? have you tried removing them (setting score to zero).
what does spamassassin --lint give yo?
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State
Michele
hence for those using RDJ to update, you edit the version info, which
*should* get emailed to a real person with the I've upgrade these
rules message
At least you've then informed as many people as possible the rule is
going off-line..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
I do not doubt it. That's why I'm really trying on this one. I'm moving this
system off Solaris to Linux soon, so I don't really need to solve this
issue, but I'm curious to say the least.
As someone else pointed out, I tried loading URIDNSBL.pm as a plugin by
putting a loadplugin line in my
Greetings,
I'm trying to investigate whether SpamAssassin can be used in a non-spam
application that we're trying to build. I've read lots of stuff on the
website but I'm still not sure. I thought I would ask you, the experts.
The application needs to determine whether a certain domain name
I've suddenly started getting problems with SpamAssassin timing out. I
upgraded to Mail::SpamAssassin 3.0.1 first with no luck.
Initially the timeouts were in the bayes store so I turned
bayes_auto_expire off and now the timeout has moved to Message.pm.
Oct 29 10:59:14 linux amavis[28527]:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 01:57:21PM +0400, Alexandr Orlov wrote:
Received: from lala.ru ([1.1.1.1] verified)
by lalala.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5)
with SMTP id 2916390; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:26:04 +0400
X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed
What is the problem and what I can do to remove
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 05:04:03AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
-Spamd's logfile below shows the from plixfeld-at-andromedas.com to
jason-at-lixfeld.ca. The system things the username is nobody. I've
tried with both the -q and -Q spamd switches to no avail.
-anyone know what's going on
At 12:00 PM 10/29/2004, Moussa Fall wrote:
I am using RH9. I removed the install version and downloaded the latest
tarball SpamAssassin
3.0.1. Unfortunately I have a problem while installing. While running
'make' got the following
error:
Makefile:95: *** missing separator. Stop.
Checked the
We are running SA 3.0.1 site wide at my company and I had some false
positives due to HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC and HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR. They are
probably useful rules, but I am surprised that their default scores
are so high. Here are the headers of the message and the scores it
got:
Received: from
Hi!
Here are the scores:
Content analysis details: (-98.8 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
0.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC)
0.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR
At 01:26 PM 10/29/2004, Mark Christoph wrote:
As a result, I lowered the scores for HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC and
HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR.
I also forced bayes to relearn the email as ham, etc. The other
problem is that the sender of the message informed me that it is not a
dynamically assigned address. It
On 29-Oct-04, at 11:13 AM, Michael Parker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 05:04:03AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
-Spamd's logfile below shows the from plixfeld-at-andromedas.com to
jason-at-lixfeld.ca. The system things the username is nobody.
I've
tried with both the -q and -Q spamd switches
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:31:59PM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
debug: Conf::SQL: executing SQL: SELECT preference, value FROM userpref
WHERE username = 'jason-at-lixfeld.ca' OR username = '$GLOBAL' OR
username = CONCAT('%','lixfeld.ca') ORDER BY username ASC
Run this query in the command
I've searches low and high for answers to this problem, but I believe they
answers out there don't have regular predictable keywords to find them.
SA 3.0.1
Redhat FC2
In short, when I run sa-learn --dump, I see a slew of binary tokens. I've
isolated the problem by creating a test directory,
At 03:36 PM 10/29/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've searches low and high for answers to this problem, but I believe they
answers out there don't have regular predictable keywords to find them.
SA 3.0.1
Redhat FC2
Yes, that's what it's supposed to do in SA 3.x.
SA 3.0.x does not store bayes
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 03:36:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In short, when I run sa-learn --dump, I see a slew of binary tokens. I've
isolated the problem by creating a test directory, pointing sa-dump to it via
--dbpath, and creating a new db. Even after loading only a single spam
At 04:26 PM 10/29/2004, John Chase wrote:
This is my fist time posting to the list so I hope that my message is
targeted to the appropriate audience. I'm running SA 3.0 with Qmail Scanner.
I hope to delete all detected spam. However, some Spam is slipping by. The
subject is renamed, but the
-Original Message-
From: Frank Pineau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: sa-stats.pl
I haven't looked at sa-stats.pl from the tools dir in awhile,
but since
upgrading to 3.0.2, I thought I'd look at it again. Anyone
have an idea
why it returns all zeros? Does it even work
At 04:42 PM 10/29/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the responses. Good explanations that make perfect sense.
SO.. now that I'm past the hex-in-db issue, I clearly do have some issue
nonetheless. The following spam got through with a score of -4.3,
seemingly because of the AWL. My
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:21:59 -0700, Jeff Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63?
[...]
Using it in local only mode, though, I've found it not very different.
The spams that get through 3.x that do not get
32 matches
Mail list logo
