Bubuk Gabrok writes:
On Jan 29, 2008 5:15 AM, Bubuk Gabrok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 4:36 AM, Randal, Phil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes,
That should be fine.
Don't forget to run sa-update after installing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lib]# /usr/bin/sa-update --nogpg
Quoting David Zinder [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think my problem is related to surbl.org, but I can't figure out how
to reach them. list.surbl.org times out, and has for several weeks.
I had been using Spamassassin 3.1.5 under RHEL 3. Works great, until
Jan 1, 2008. I started getting false
On Wednesday 30 January 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
First of all, let me say a big thank you, as it proves that my spamfilter
is not yet filtering out spam from the Debian mailing list.
I'd be interested in a filter that would work on a message like that.. Not
sure what the difference
i'm looking for any rule which can check if sender address given in envelope
matches address given in header From: field.
please help,
Michał Szamocki
Cirrus
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/envelope-and-From%3A-sender-matching-rule-tp15181010p15181010.html
Sent from the
hi all,
In my project I am going to send newsletters to our clients. Here I need to
validate my newsletter(content) using perl. I need to check the spam score
for only body content not header. I have tried with SA-3.2.4 it will check
both header and body of the newsletter. I need to show the
I noticed when I use spamassasin -r that it seems to add virtually
every email address inside the email to the auto-whitelist db with
high values (ie it's blacklisting them), even my own address, even
addresses in received header lines. This isn't what I expected, I
would have expected this to
Cirrus wrote:
i'm looking for any rule which can check if sender address given in envelope
matches address given in header From: field.
Why? This isn't generally a useful rule, as mismatches are very common.
For example, this mailing list (or any other mailing list).. The From:
header will
Michael Grant wrote:
I noticed when I use spamassasin -r that it seems to add virtually
every email address inside the email to the auto-whitelist db with
high values (ie it's blacklisting them), even my own address, even
addresses in received header lines. This isn't what I expected, I
would
mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:51 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps Verizon is screwing up their DNS?
Ahh, yes they are:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1227
Hrm.
As a troubleshooting hack for this increasingly-common feature,
According to the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MassCheck
mass-check lives in the masses of the source tarball. This was true for
SA 3.1.x and older, but 3.2.x no longer includes it.
It can still be grabbed SVN, or even the web interface to SVN, but the
wiki should point to the
Matt Kettler writes:
According to the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MassCheck
mass-check lives in the masses of the source tarball. This was true for
SA 3.1.x and older, but 3.2.x no longer includes it.
It can still be grabbed SVN, or even the web interface to SVN, but the
Sg wrote:
hi all,
In my project I am going to send newsletters to our clients. Here I
need to validate my newsletter(content) using perl. I need to check
the spam score for only body content not header. I have tried with
SA-3.2.4 it will check both header and body of the newsletter. I need
Hello all,
Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
very simple question.
I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the To address, either
in the form To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
Hmm... Well that worked a lot better to get results, but unfortunately I
still don't have either an error or a score.
Here's what I got :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cur]# spamassassin -D bayes mbox2vpopmail.29159.98:2,S |
less
[15923] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.1/32 as it has already been
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 08:38 +0200, David Baron wrote:
OK spamassassin folks: Rules which would say no puppies on software mailing
lists, no software on dog-breeders mailing lists. A few false alarms, i.e.
that great new app is such a sweet-puppie and that breeder's management
package is a
On 1/30/08 at 12:12 PM -0500 Theo Van Dinter wrote:
So the masses directory was cut, since the only time you'd use that stuff is
when developing SA or rules, and at that point you can just grab the SVN
tree since you're probably going to want to use it for the latest code/rules
anyway.
I imagine
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:20 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
very simple question.
I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the To
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:20 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
The // are matched literally, they are not used as an RE delimiter. The
entire string after the asterisk is a regex anyway. Lose the slashes.
Procmail does not know
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:12 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
:0 :
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
spam/to-numerical
Brilliant! It works! Thank you so much Guenther (and others who have replied
off-list to help me with this).
If I can
John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 08:38 +0200, David Baron wrote:
OK spamassassin folks: Rules which would say no puppies on software mailing
lists, no software on dog-breeders mailing lists. A few false alarms, i.e.
that great new app is such a sweet-puppie and that breeder's
Arthur Dent wrote:
Hello all,
Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
very simple question.
I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the To address, either
in the form To:
On 1/30/08 at 3:20 PM + Arthur Dent wrote:
I am so pleased with this rule that I decided to give my poor old SA a
well-deserved rest from this rubbish and take these spams out at Procmail
time.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of mobile phones out there that have
email addresses that begin
Larry Nedry wrote:
On 1/30/08 at 3:20 PM + Arthur Dent wrote:
I am so pleased with this rule that I decided to give my poor old SA a
well-deserved rest from this rubbish and take these spams out at Procmail
time.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of mobile phones out there that
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:07:43PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
The big question is, where do the devs think folks should go to get it?
from SVN directly, I guess.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/trunk/masses ...
Yes. The main idea was to
All,
I have a very bizarre issue here - we use Zimbra and its' built in SpamAssassin
to manage our Spam - we get a lot of Japanese emails in, so I have configured
ok_languages en jp
ok_locales en jp
in local.cf. I have also edited v310pre.in to enable TextCat. SpamAssassin has
then been
25 matches
Mail list logo
