Mitchell Hudson wrote:
Hello there,
I have spamassassin loaded and is running pretty well, it's supposed
to be using bayes and I can't find any errors that would tell me why
it's not, but it's not. When I do a debug log there are no db
connection errors, in fact it's auto-learning just fine.
McDonald, Dan wrote:
I'm using amavisd-new and p0f with BOTNET.pl, and some Windows XP
machines are not being caught.
Here are my rules:
header L_P0F_WXP X-Amavis-OS-Fingerprint =~ /^Windows XP(?![^(]*\b2000 SP)/
score L_P0F_WXP 2.3
header L_P0F_W X-Amavis-OS-Fingerprint =~ /^Windows(?!
Matt Kettler wrote:
Mitchell Hudson wrote:
Hello there,
I have spamassassin loaded and is running pretty well, it's supposed
to be using bayes and I can't find any errors that would tell me why
it's not, but it's not. When I do a debug log there are no db
connection errors, in fact it's
I've got a PHP script that processes my email. It runs each message
against the spamc daemon. But it seems that EVERY message is getting a
score of zero.
Can somebody help me figure out WHY?
Thanks!
Don
My code:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 12:04:34PM -0500, Don Ireland wrote:
I've got a PHP script that processes my email. It runs each message
against the spamc daemon. But it seems that EVERY message is getting a
score of zero.
Can somebody help me figure out WHY?
That usually means either a) spamd
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Don Ireland wrote:
Can somebody help me figure out WHY?
It's returning *0/0*
As far as my experience goes, you get 0/0 only if the spamc
did not get a connection to the spamd!
A 'real' score of zero
I have used spamassassin over a year on my mail server, using James as
pop/smtp and a homewritten mailet to connect to spamd through tcp.
Yesterday I suddenly discovered load average peaks over 100 (!!!) on the
server, and soon found this :
22617 spamd 18 0 1830m 1.6g 2156 D2 54.2
header L_P0F_WXP X-Amavis-OS-Fingerprint =~ /^Windows XP(?![^(]*\b2000
SP)/ score L_P0F_WXP 2.3
header L_P0F_W X-Amavis-OS-Fingerprint =~ /^Windows(?! XP)/
score L_P0F_W 1.0
[...]
Matt Kettler wrote:
Well, that much should be obvious.
Both rules are explicitly designed to
Mark Martinec wrote:
header L_P0F_WXP X-Amavis-OS-Fingerprint =~ /^Windows XP(?![^(]*\b2000
SP)/ score L_P0F_WXP 2.3
header L_P0F_W X-Amavis-OS-Fingerprint =~ /^Windows(?! XP)/
score L_P0F_W 1.0
[...]
Matt Kettler wrote:
Well, that much should be obvious.
Both rules
