On Monday, January 10, 2005, 9:07:56 AM, Nate Davis wrote:
I have heard things about SURBLS, and URIDNSBL, How do I turn these on
to use them, or are they already on? I installed SpamAssassin 3.0.2
via CPAN.
To use SURBLS and RBLs in SA, enable network tests and install
a recent version of
All,
Given that I couldn't seem to find a freebsd rc script for spamd that was
functional, I wrote one. I note that the spamd maintainer is listed as
AWOL on the credits list though and was wondering if anyone (users or
committers) wants the script either for their own use or perhaps for
inclusion
I've been seeing the same thing on RedHat 9, with spamassassin 3.0.2.
Anyone have a fix?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:24:27 -0800, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's interesting how one process (of all started at the same time) is
using so much memory.
# ps aux | egrep '(spamd|USER)'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Take a look for massive AWL or Bayes db files in the filesystem --
that has been reported to cause it in the past...
- --j.
Ryan Castellucci writes:
I've been seeing the same thing on RedHat 9, with spamassassin 3.0.2.
Anyone have a fix?
On
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 11:26, Chris Santerre wrote:
SA Rules Rule #1: No single rule should EVER cause an email to be marked as
spam.
Interestingly enough..
SA Rules Rule #2348: All pron spam should be diverted to the marketing dept.
Interestingly enough, my previous filtering
apparently this massage never got to the list so here i'm sending it again.
after all the way i describe below. i just checked my email and out of 24
new messages 22 were spam. something's wrong
what could it be?
thank you all...
i read this docs on the spamassaassin site..
i did set up
At 08:43 PM 1/10/2005, Scott Wertz wrote:
That said, I have another question. Where can I find a definition of
the four numbers in the surbl (and others) scores in 50_scores.cf?
Assigning a single score for MAPS is simple enough, but what are these?
score SPF_SOFTFAIL 0.500 0.842 0.500 0.500
From
At 08:52 PM 1/10/2005, kalin mintchev wrote:
apparently this massage never got to the list so here i'm sending it again.
Your original message did reach the list.
after all the way i describe below. i just checked my email and out of 24
new messages 22 were spam. something's wrong
what could
At 04:32 PM 1/9/2005, Simon Byrnand wrote:
As far as I can see this is impossible to emulate with
--virtual-config-dir, as it only specifies the DIRECTORY and expects a
file user_prefs, with no way to specify an alternative filename. This
would mean I'd have to have something like:
Bill
Alot of people seem to be noticed this, there is a small memory patch
floating around the email list archives you could try.
It missed the 3.02 cut off, but apparently works fine with this version.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Bill
Greetings
Has anybody setup Spamassassin (3.0 and above) to work with openldap and
qmail-ldap. If so has it worked and proven effective ?
Currently we use Spamassassin with mySQL.
Any documentation and guidance would definitely help
Warm regards
Indran Govender
pgpzTTkRrYai5.pgp
hey everybody on the list,
i use postfix on my mailserver, ans spamassassin for marking spammails,
it work's really great except
one aspect:
postfix uses the filter.sh which gives the mail to spamassassin.
my only problem is, that every mail is beeing scanned, even
if they are bigger (e.g.
Hello happy SpamAssassin users,
Every night, I stop Postfix, stop SA, force-expire bayes db,
restart SA, restart Postfix. This goes fine most of the time, but
sometimes I run into problems.
The problems arise around once a week or so : spamc cannot connect
to spamd, saying the following in the
Hi all,
I just installed sac yesterday and Im testing it atm. I get : Security key invalid on host my.host.com
on every log lines.
What is that security key (I know its in the registry)? How can I get a valid security key?
Sorry if its a dumb question Ive looked all around
on
Ya, I don't get the whole thread. If one wants seamless upgrades and
backwards compat for 10 years one should stick to windows, Solaris, AIX
etc.
Ya, right.
My 1 cent for the week.
Stuart Johnston wrote:
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
sarcasm
With over 68% market
Hi!
same problem here;
as workaround I restart spamd every day
Take a look for massive AWL or Bayes db files in the filesystem --
that has been reported to cause it in the past...
of course; 400+ users
-rw---1 exim exim 31 Jan 11 15:38 bayes.lock
-rw---1 exim
At 09:28 AM 1/11/2005, you wrote:
I just installed sac yesterday and I'm testing it atm. I get : Security
key invalid on host my.host.com on every log lines.
What is that security key (I know it's in the registry)? How can I get a
valid security key?
1) What is sac ( the product you said you
I was sticking with 2.64 and postfix 1.* for those same reasons
My /boot got totally hosed on my server so I was forced to begin using
my experimental box with PF2 and SA302. Now at least half of the spam
that used to be processed by SA never even gets there as PF rejects it
outright. I am
OK spent a coouple of days on this as I need the 'old' machine as a web
server and the new 2.8ghz machine is way overkill for that.
So I've got everything moved over, including most of the extra rules in
/etc/mail/spamassassin and the URI stuff going as well (was already
using his for 2.64
BCC wrote:
Hello happy SpamAssassin users,
Every night, I stop Postfix, stop SA, force-expire bayes db,
restart SA, restart Postfix. This goes fine most of the time,
but sometimes I run into problems.
The problems arise around once a week or so : spamc cannot
connect to spamd, saying the
I've decided to wipe out my old bayes db from SA 2.6. I'm trying to
rebuild the bayes db by sa-learning some directories full of spam saved
by MailScanner. Sa-learn shows the dots, says it learned from messages,
but when I run a spamassassin -D -t it says there are 0 spams. When I do
a --dump
Hi,
I was running into this problem as well. I was running SA 3.0.0 on
Postfix 2 on Redhat AS 3.2. Essentially upon most restarts, it appears child
processes were still running. The port to SA was in fact open so SA could
not start, but postfix could not connect to it. The fix at that time
Sunny
did use the -p path-to/spam.assassin.pref.conf flag on th sa-lean and
spamassassin calls so the things get the correct bayes_path etc?
Also bayes won't kick in till you've given it at least 200 spam AND ham
examples..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel:
hi,
i know that in the future i will have to use spamd/spamc but at the moment
i can't migrate because of several reasons. that's why i have to get
'filter.sh'
modified in the way that only mails smaller 100 kb are passed through
spamassassin.
regards,
werner
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 05:12 AM
At 11:06 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote:
i know that in the future i will have to use spamd/spamc but at the moment
i can't migrate because of several reasons. that's why i have to get
'filter.sh'
modified in the way that only mails smaller 100 kb are passed through
spamassassin.
Well, the
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:19 AM
To: werner detter; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spamassassin + filter.sh
At 11:06 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote:
i know that in the future i will have to
Quoting Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Solutions
The problem occured again, and I catched the following from
spamd output
What is the output of netstat?
Since restarting spamd solves the problem without any visible side-effect,
I wrote a watchdog script to monitor spamd, and to restart it
I am noticing entries in the maillog like the following. This tells me
that somehow mail is relaying through my system. I followed the Scott
Henderson setup document and havent noticed this before.
Jan 11 11:24:33 SA2 postfix/smtp[12722]: 8FE98F4280:
to=[EMAIL PROTECTED],
hi matt,
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 11:06 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote:
i know that in the future i will have to use spamd/spamc but at the
moment
i can't migrate because of several reasons. that's why i have to get
'filter.sh'
modified in the way that only mails smaller 100 kb are passed
Ronald I. Nutter wrote the following on 11/01/2005 16:43:
I am noticing entries in the maillog like the following. This tells me
that somehow mail is relaying through my system. I followed the Scott
Henderson setup document and havent noticed this before.
Jan 11 11:24:33 SA2 postfix/smtp[12722]:
I would focus on your reject_unauth_destination setting in postfix. See
http://tinyurl.com/499ro for more info.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Ronald I. Nutter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:43 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Postfix relay
same here.
On 10 Jan 2005 at 7:45, Nichols, William wrote:
I will be sticking with 2.64 for a while as well.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:42 AM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: maintaining the
I took over this email server late in 2003. According to the nasd a
copy of all broker emails must be kept.
At first we were using mbox and now we use Maildir. One user has a copy
of all email including [SPAM] mails.
We have discussed it and want to remove all the mail marked as [SPAM]
and
At 11:53 AM 1/11/2005, werner detter wrote:
thanks for your help, migration to spamc/spamd wouldn't be the problem -
it's even
planned within the next half year. there is only one reason this hasn't
been done so far:
there is no desicion from the company management if the want to use only
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:14:03AM +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
Bill
Alot of people seem to be noticed this, there is a small memory patch
floating around the email list archives you could try.
Do you remember any good keywords subject or author to help in
locating the patch? I'm not
What makes me think I do is where it says it has talked to another mail
server. Didn't think it was supposed to do that.
Ron
Ron Nutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Manager
Information Technology
On 01/11/05 11:43 AM, Ronald I. Nutter sat at the `puter and typed:
I am noticing entries in the maillog like the following. This tells me
that somehow mail is relaying through my system. I followed the Scott
Henderson setup document and havent noticed this before.
Jan 11 11:24:33 SA2
At 06:42 AM 1/10/2005, Martin Hepworth wrote:
I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 and
found it's scores are way lower on all test emails than 2.64. (anywhere
upto 33% lower in limited tests).
I've managed to get most of my 2.64 rules etc over (along with bayes),
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
Troels Walsted Hansen wrote:
I created a small plugin using the new plugin API in SpamAssassin 3.x.
The plugin connects to a local ClamAV server (through TCP) and checks
the email for virus. If a virus is found,
At 08:52 PM 1/10/2005, kalin mintchev wrote:
apparently this massage never got to the list so here i'm sending it
again.
Your original message did reach the list.
thanks Matt... i didn't get it. i looked at my spam folder too...
after all the way i describe below. i just checked my email
-Original Message-
From: kalin mintchev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 3:11 PM
To: Matt Kettler
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: bayes?!
At 08:52 PM 1/10/2005, kalin mintchev wrote:
apparently this massage never got to the list so here
At 04:10 PM 1/11/2005, kalin mintchev wrote:
Have you looked at the X-Spam-Status of any of the messages? Look what
rules are matching, this will be your best hint to the problem.
yes. but there isn't anything indicating that the spam db are used or
tests are being done against them. should
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 04:10 PM 1/11/2005, kalin mintchev wrote:
bayes_path /path/to/spamdb
does ending forward slash matter?
Actually, you MUST NOT end in a slash.. and it should end in the word
bayes, and there must be no directory named bayes there.
bayes_path is actually a path
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 04:35 PM 1/11/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Couldn't this be auto-detected for? Something like
if (-d $bayes_path)
{ $bayes_path =~ s(/?$)(/bayes);
}
Yes, but what if the user really wanted the original option, and the
directory exists as an error?
In
At 05:10 PM 1/11/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure DWIM is dangerous, but you must admit the option name is misleading.
*VERY*
I'd favor changing the option name to something like bayes_dbbasename so
that poor users don't get caught up in thinking the SA Developers really
mean that bayes_path
Check rfc-ignorant.org for the domain bsweetinc.com. Basically
checked and listed after your first message - many strange games in their
bag. BTW., My Postfix setup would have bounced it also (and now many more
people will).
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: RE: spamassassin + filter.sh
If the call to spamd fails
then the message is passed back. Basically if it fails it just isn't
scanned.
But there usually aren'y many problems with
SA. Many of us are running it on high volume systems in complex
configurations with no problems.
Gary
I use Amavis which nicly incorporates clamd and spamassasin together, it also
supports just about every other (unix) anti virus package and in fact will
allow the use of two, as well as dspam. Plus other features.
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 07:31, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
48 matches
Mail list logo
