On Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:25:15 PM, mouss mouss wrote:
> Gregory P. Ennis a écrit :
>> [snip]
>>
>> Thanks for the response. How can I determine if SURBL is turned on?
>>
> SURBL is probably turned on.
> you can run spamassassin with the -D flag.
> you can also look in SA files to see i
when trying to run automated sa-learn it core dumps after a few seconds.
Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) /usr/local/bin/sa-learn --spam --
mbox -u $i $USERROOT/$i/${MAILP}/SPAM
If I su to the actual user and run this commend:
$ sa-learn --mbox --spam SPAM
Learned tokens from 909 message
Yes each file contains only one email.I have also mbox files containing
multiple messages but they dont have content section.They only have
headers.So I dont know how accurate results I will get.
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 17:39 -0800, cnone wrote:
>> Thank u very muc
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 17:39 -0800, cnone wrote:
> Thank u very much.It works.By not accurate,you mean spam detection will not
> be accurate?
By "accurate" I mean -- SA can do a best effort guess. SA can not one
hundred percent accurately identify spam. Whenever any program is
involved, there's alw
Thank u very much.It works.By not accurate,you mean spam detection will not
be accurate?
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 16:37 -0800, cnone wrote:
>> How can I call spamc and loop through all mails(like 100 mbox email
>> files)
>> under a directory and decide which is spam
I would use "formail -s" to go through the mbox file, and pipe the
mail through procmail w/ an appropriate recipe file to filter the mails as
you'd want.
SpamAssassin is happy to markup your mails, but has no filtering capabilities
since it doesn't deliver mail.
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 04:37:30PM
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 16:37 -0800, cnone wrote:
> How can I call spamc and loop through all mails(like 100 mbox email files)
> under a directory and decide which is spam which is not and save the spams
> in a different dir?
$ man spamc
$ for f in *; do spamc -c < $f || mv $f spam/; done
Bewar
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 00:25 +, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:05:35 +0100 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Oh, and the text actually is incorrect. Neither has been sent from the
> > USA, though it actually are dial-ups. ;)
>
> The text is lifted from here:
> http://www.joewein.de/sw/spam-re
How can I call spamc and loop through all mails(like 100 mbox email files)
under a directory and decide which is spam which is not and save the spams
in a different dir?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Calling-spamc-and-looping-through-files-tp21905369p21905369.html
Sent
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 08:16 +0800, Fajar Priyanto wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > There is no such blacklist. Bayes is a statistical method to determine
> > how good or bad (spam) a mail is, by dissecting the email into tokens
> > (words) and taking into acc
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:05:35 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > It was good for a laugh, really. :) Until a strange feeling crept
> > over me, realizing the words...
> >
> > Confirmed. That paragraph *severely* affected Bayes for me. No Bayes
> > training with that mail up to that point, resu
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann
wrote:
> There is no such blacklist. Bayes is a statistical method to determine
> how good or bad (spam) a mail is, by dissecting the email into tokens
> (words) and taking into account how often each word has been used in
> good email or spam be
> It was good for a laugh, really. :) Until a strange feeling crept over
> me, realizing the words...
>
> Confirmed. That paragraph *severely* affected Bayes for me. No Bayes
> training with that mail up to that point, results reproducible.
>
> BAYES_99 probability 1.WITHOUT that text
>
First of all: This is a mailing list. Please DO subscribe before
posting. Your message has been held for moderation for half a day.
Failure to subscribe means unnecessary work for others and delays your
post and answers.
Thus, before posting again, please subscribe to the users list:
http://wiki
Hi Gurus.
A couple of our company customer told - they didnt got our emails,.
others wrote a messages its delivered to the spam, or junk mail folder, or
returned from a spam filter with a warning... ,
- my company emailaddresses on the *Bayesian* spam filter black list.
-
Gregory P. Ennis a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> Thanks for the response. How can I determine if SURBL is turned on?
>
SURBL is probably turned on.
you can run spamassassin with the -D flag.
you can also look in SA files to see if it using multi.surbl.org. if
using sa-update, look in
/var/(db|lib)/sp
Just got this in an actual replica watch spam.
This spam was sent using an innocent third party as the fake sender address
who will pick up bounces and misdirected spam complaints. It went out via a
third party host (broadband host in the USA), i.e. stealing someone else's
service. It was
Wooow.Thank u very much :) It worked.
mouss-4 wrote:
>
> cnone a écrit :
>> I am running like this
>> mass-check --mbox mails
>> where mails is a directory contains mbox mails?
>> by defaullt mass-check should create spam.log right?
>>
>
> with your commands, you get "logs" in stdout (and the
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 18:38 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:14:58 AM, Andre Andre wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does that require changes to spamassassin or is it using multi already
> > > > (3.2.5 used here)?
> > >
> > > > My stats report those:
> > > > URI
cnone a écrit :
> I am running like this
> mass-check --mbox mails
> where mails is a directory contains mbox mails?
> by defaullt mass-check should create spam.log right?
>
with your commands, you get "logs" in stdout (and there's no ham/spam
classification, anyway).
try
mass-check ham:mbox:
Marc Perkel a écrit :
>
> I'm considering using it as a sort of white list to not accidentally add
> the host to my black list. Any server that does sender verification or
> is issuing NDR reports (even if misconfigured) and not hosts that should
> be blacklisted as spammers. These are hosts that
On Sun, February 8, 2009 18:58, Marc Perkel wrote:
Marc stop CC:
> I'm considering using it as a sort of white list to not accidentally
> add the host to my black list. Any server that does sender
> verification or is issuing NDR reports (even if misconfigured) and
> not hosts that should be bla
I am running like this
mass-check --mbox mails
where mails is a directory contains mbox mails?
by defaullt mass-check should create spam.log right?
mouss-4 wrote:
>
> cnone a écrit :
>> I am using mass-check to scan mbox email files in a directory. After I
>> run
>> mass-check,I am running hit-
mouss wrote:
Marc Perkel a écrit :
I'm experimenting with ips.backscatterer.org and it seems to only hit on
good email.
it lists hosts that sent backscatter, be these "legitimate" hosts or
not. but beware, it also lists hosts that do address verification
callout probes.
I'm co
> > On Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:14:58 AM, Andre Andre wrote:
> >
> > > Does that require changes to spamassassin or is it using multi already
> > > (3.2.5 used here)?
> >
> > > My stats report those:
> > > URIBL_JP_SURBL
> > > URIBL_AB_SURBL
> > > URIBL_SC_SURBL
> > > URIBL_OB_SURBL
> > > U
cnone a écrit :
> I am using mass-check to scan mbox email files in a directory. After I run
> mass-check,I am running hit-frequencies,but i get message like
> hit-frequencies cant find spam.log file no such file or directory.
> What is the problem?
you forgot to tell us how you run each command ;
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:43 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:14:58 AM, Andre Andre wrote:
>
> > Does that require changes to spamassassin or is it using multi already
> > (3.2.5 used here)?
>
> > My stats report those:
> > URIBL_JP_SURBL
> > URIBL_AB_SURBL
> > URIBL_
I am using mass-check to scan mbox email files in a directory. After I run
mass-check,I am running hit-frequencies,but i get message like
hit-frequencies cant find spam.log file no such file or directory.
What is the problem?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Spam.log-locati
Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
> I'm running spamc/spamd 3.2.4 on a Ubuntu 8.04 server, it's the
> standard Ubuntu package. I have the default settings for Bayes (with
> auto_learn) and I'm using a mysql backend for BayesStore.
It’s worth noting that Bayes, by itself, is not allowed to condemn spam.
Its
On Sun, February 8, 2009 02:00, Matt Kettler wrote:
> If you don't trust yourself to make a good SPF record, put it in a
> DNS view of your domain that only your SA box can see, and don't
> export that record to the rest of the world.
this can be done in postfix without dns also, go in panik dont
Marc Perkel a écrit :
> I'm experimenting with ips.backscatterer.org and it seems to only hit on
> good email.
>
it lists hosts that sent backscatter, be these "legitimate" hosts or
not. but beware, it also lists hosts that do address verification
callout probes.
> Also - it might be more useful
I'm experimenting with ips.backscatterer.org and it seems to only hit on
good email.
Also - it might be more useful if it returned different codes based on
the kind of backscatter detected.
32 matches
Mail list logo
