John D. Hardin schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, all 3 categories include emails that SA has already seen and
presumably included in its Bayesian filters,
Only if you have autolearn enabled. Can we assume that you do from
this question? You didn't explicitly say.
Matthias Haegele schrieb:
Some people advise not to relearn old spam what would you suggest,
learn only last 6 month e.g.?
I meant if you must relearn from scratch how far you would go back?
--
Gruesse/Greetings
MH
Dont send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Some people advise not to relearn old spam what would you suggest,
learn only last 6 month e.g.?
I'd suggest only the last 3 months or less of spam if you have enough. Old
ham should be fine though.
Loren
Hi,
My mail system use virtual user.
I use spamd like this
spamd --virtual-config-dir=/srv/spamassassin/%d/%l -x -u dovecot -c -i
127.0.0.1 -d -r /var/run/spamd.pid
I run spamc with
/usr/pkg/bin/spamc -u ${recipient} -f -e ...
This work fine, each user can use it's own sa config.
But i would
Loren Wilton wrote:
Valid email addresses have a well-known structure (i.e. [A-z.]*_NAME)
so, for example [EMAIL PROTECTED] is clearly a bogus address.
Off the top of my head you might be able to do something like (untested):
header__GOOD_NAMETo=~
Jean-Edouard Babin wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 1:38 PM, Jonathan Armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jean-Edouard Babin wrote:
But i would like to be able to run sa-learn for spefic users
I tryed sa-lean --username [EMAIL PROTECTED] --spam files
But as I can see with debug (-D) it use bayes file
Jean-Edouard Babin wrote:
Hi,
My mail system use virtual user.
I use spamd like this
spamd --virtual-config-dir=/srv/spamassassin/%d/%l -x -u dovecot -c -i
127.0.0.1 http://127.0.0.1 -d -r /var/run/spamd.pid
I run spamc with
/usr/pkg/bin/spamc -u ${recipient} -f -e ...
This work fine, each
Hi again SA experts,
Note the error message in the 2nd-last line of the following transcript:
animalhead:~/sj $ sa-learn --no-rebuild --spam --mbox savejunk
The --no-rebuild option has been deprecated. Please use --no-sync
instead.
Learned tokens from 3025 message(s) (3047 message(s)
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Catch-all setups always have this problem. You could use SA to figure
out which addresses are likely to be valid, but this means that you have
to accept the message and then call SA for EVERY one of these emails.
I'm aware of that... but the benefits outweigh the
Steve wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
Valid email addresses have a well-known structure (i.e.
[A-z.]*_NAME) so, for example [EMAIL PROTECTED] is clearly a
bogus address.
Off the top of my head you might be able to do something like
(untested):
header__GOOD_NAMETo=~
Steve Haeck wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
The best way is to use your MTA. Set up a method for your users to
create these email addresses as real email aliases in your MTA.
Then you can set your MTA to only accept valid email addresses and
the problem goes away.
That would be a
Steve wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
That can be fixed by having the MTA (or MDA) add a Delivered-To header
indicating the user the message is being delivered to. Then you can use
this header rather than having to rely on something sensible being in
the To or Cc headers.
I always wondered where
Bowie Bailey wrote:
That can be fixed by having the MTA (or MDA) add a Delivered-To header
indicating the user the message is being delivered to. Then you can use
this header rather than having to rely on something sensible being in
the To or Cc headers.
I always wondered where Delivered-To was
On Jan 17, 2008 2:31 PM, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Edouard Babin wrote:
Hi,
My mail system use virtual user.
I use spamd like this
spamd --virtual-config-dir=/srv/spamassassin/%d/%l -x -u dovecot -c -i
127.0.0.1 http://127.0.0.1 -d -r /var/run/spamd.pid
I run spamc
header__GOOD_NAMETo=~
/[A-Za-z]{1,30}_[A-Za-z\d\.]{2,40}\@(?i:domain\.com)/
metaBAD_NAME!__GOOD_NAME
scoreBAD_NAME2
Above is based on the assumption that NAME includes only letters,
numbers, and dots. If it can also have underscores then you could just
do
Theo Van Dinter felicity at apache.org writes:
spamd[2492]: razor2: razor2 check failed: razor2: razor2 had unknown error
during check at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Razor2.pm line 211,
GEN25 line 1. at
Hello everyone,
I have been having some issues with Spamassassin and have been ironing
things out (like child processes not becoming re-usable), but there is
one that floors me (probably because I'm not a perl expert.. but hey).
Anyway here goes my configuration and the errors I am seeing, I
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:28:06PM -0600, Steven Stern wrote:
bayes db version 0 indicates your bayes file is corrupt. It should be
version 3. Do you have a backup? SQL or .db?
It doesn't necessarily mean there's corruption,
in fact, since the learning continued and
Thank you to both responders.
Did I read something that said that the digit after bayes db
version indicated the version of Berkeley DB that's installed on the
system? Like 0 means 1.x... Google shows various messages like
bayes db version 2 is not able to be used, aborting! which would
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 07:42:30PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did I read something that said that the digit after bayes db
version indicated the version of Berkeley DB that's installed on the
system? Like 0 means 1.x... Google shows various messages like
bayes db version 2 is not
Hi,
I am using SA from amavis-new, with postfix, in before-queue
configuration, with per user scores (provided by amavis) I also want
to implement per user bayes. But since SA takes only a single user
name, amavis-new is not able to implement per-user bayes.
Is it a good idea for SA to take
21 matches
Mail list logo
