Nicolas Letellier wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
There's also a bug already open on this.
David Carvalho wrote:
Hi !
I’m using spamassassin 3.1.8 on a server.
This is the last version available from the repository for this
particular linux version.
For some months it seems that both channels I use
(saupdates.openprotect.com and updates.spamassassin.org)
Don’t release any
Raymond Jette wrote:
Good morning,
This morning I ran a sa-learn –dump magic and saw the following:
Nspam 201
Nham 242
Soon after I ran spamassassin –D –lint to look for problems and it
reported:
Bayes: not available for scanning, only 189 spam(s) in bayes DB 200
I re-ran
Have you got any answers on this? I have the same problem. Other numbers of
errors. So I am stuck with 3.1.0
--
Regards
Lars Ebeling
http://leopg9.no-ip.org
Hobbithobbyist
It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and
remove all doubt.
-- Mark Twain
-
Bob Cohen wrote:
I'm running Fedora v9. All of the prerequisite and optional modules
installed with no problem. Suggestions?
Well, there’s always “install it with yum”:
yum install spamassassin
Hope this helps,
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | “It has taken 24 years to get the Reichstag
All -
My apologies if this has come up before - but I was unable to find
anything relevant in the archives or while searching the docs...
I've had a recent problem with a specific piece of mail that was flagged
as spam - rightfully so in my opinion based on the flagged rules - but
indeed
Thanks. I did a slight change in Received.pm to log only untrusted
relays, all on one line for each mail (through enabling own debug channel).
Now I'm gonna to write an analyzer, which will walk through spamd log
daily and collect these records (only for spam with defined overscore)
and add
On 02.09.08 12:01, Chris Henry wrote:
The problem is that it appears that spamassassin stripped the original
message out after it flagged it as spam. I am running Exim 4.63 with
SpamAssassin 3.2.5 being called via procmail.
don't you use the '--headers' option to spamc? It causes spamd
Hi! since you guys told be that version 3.1.8 wasn't receiving updates
because it's to old, I trying to upgrade spamassassin. Since I can't
upgrade the server (I'm using Fedora 3), I've downloaded the latest
tarball and did rpmbuild -tb Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.5.tar.gz.
When trying to install
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 12:01 +0200, Thinline Maillist wrote:
Now I'm gonna to write an analyzer, which will walk through spamd log
daily and collect these records (only for spam with defined overscore)
and add some host information (whois).
You might consider writing it as an additional
Why this spam scored with 5.1 (requered 5.0) bypass spamassassin??
(clamdscan: 0.93/8144. spamassassin: 3.2.5.
Clear:RC:0(aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd):SA:1(5.1/5.0):.
Processed in 2.490743 secs); 03 Sep 2008 11:32:21 -
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.1 required=5.0
X-Spam-Level: +
On 03.09.08 09:18, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Why this spam scored with 5.1 (requered 5.0) bypass spamassassin??
Why do you think it bypassed spamassassin? The whole fact the spam was
tagged means it did NOT bypass it, don't you think?
(clamdscan: 0.93/8144. spamassassin: 3.2.5.
Same thing happened to me when I tried that . I had to do the build on a
different server and copy the rpm file back to the server I orginally
intended to run it on . I know that doesn't answer your question on why ,
but that is how I got my install to work .
Best,
Jeremy
David Carvalho
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:18:53AM -0300, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Why this spam scored with 5.1 (requered 5.0) bypass spamassassin??
(clamdscan: 0.93/8144. spamassassin: 3.2.5.
Clear:RC:0(aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd):SA:1(5.1/5.0):.
Processed in 2.490743 secs); 03 Sep 2008 11:32:21 -
X-Spam-Status:
Thanks for the reply...
I was able to build the rpm on a Fedora 7. Copyied to my Fedora 3,
But couldn't install (dependency issues, as I expected)
Is it possible/safe to install it from cpan, since I already have it running
Through rpm ?
regards
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Davila
Meanwhile, I was able to find in DAG repository
A package called spamassassin-3.2.4-1.rf-src-rpm
I installed it, and generated the rpm binary with rpmbuild from the spec
file.
When trying to install, again dependency problems, (IO::Zlib,
IO::Socket:SSL, HTML::Parser).
But when I try to install
Not to sure . I would install the dependencies. and re-run the RPM if
you primarily use RPM you should stick with that . Same thing if you build
from source files. I could be wrong...
David Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09/03/2008 09:33 AM
To
users@spamassassin.apache.org
cc
Subject
RE:
I've found that the 'make test' part of spamassassin fails when run as
root on some machines. Since you need to run CPAN as root to install
spamassassin I've found that it fails for me on most systems.
A workaround I've done in the past is exiting cpan - finding the cpan
source (usually
Matus -
No I didn't pass the --headers option to spamc. All the other messages
in my system include the original message - this is the only one out of
millions that stripped it.
-Chris H
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 02.09.08 12:01, Chris Henry wrote:
The problem is that it appears
Hi all !
I gave up trying to install spamassassin from rpms
I made:
Cpan install Mail::SpamAssassin
I look up and the folder structure previously used by version 3.1.8 is the
same.
The program is still running, and I was able to use sa-update.
So, it seems this is the best way to upgrade
-Original Message-
From: Rejaine Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:19 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spam bypass spamassassin
Why this spam scored with 5.1 (requered 5.0) bypass spamassassin??
(clamdscan: 0.93/8144.
Jason Esman wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rejaine Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:19 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spam bypass spamassassin
Why this spam scored with 5.1 (requered 5.0) bypass spamassassin??
(clamdscan:
On Sep 3, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Chris Henry wrote:
I've found that the 'make test' part of spamassassin fails when run
as root on some machines. Since you need to run CPAN as root to
install spamassassin I've found that it fails for me on most systems.
Here's some info I found on this
Bob -
You can give read permissions (if needed) on the SpamAssassin CPAN build
folder (usually /root/.cpan/build/packagename-random-key - on my
system it was: /root/.cpan/build/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.5-Bpy3vr) to some
non-root user on your system - ie: bob
as bob run make test in the
I got the following spam, and am feeling that USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST at
-15 is not really the right thing to be doing - but I know there are
often good reasons for the SA decisions.
spamassassin -t says:
-15 USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST From: address is in the default white-list
and this is
-Original Message-
From: James Wilkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 3 September 2008 7:23 p.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: CPAN Install Fails
Bob Cohen wrote:
I'm running Fedora v9. All of the prerequisite and optional modules
installed with no problem.
I recently did a --force-expire on my bayesian database as I was getting
some false positives with it and the information it in was getting to be
over a year old. Since then, when automatically scanning, bayesian
tests are not being run. This can be seen in the headers of each of my
inbound
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Bill Gunty wrote:
I recently did a --force-expire on my bayesian database as I was getting some
false positives with it and the information it in was getting to be over a
year old. Since then, when automatically scanning, bayesian tests are not
being run. This can be
28 matches
Mail list logo
