Hi spamassassin-users,
I'm trying to make use of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AccessDB plugin.
This is what I have in config:
body GMAIL_IZDANJA eval:check_access_database('/etc/mail/gmail_spam.db')
describe GMAIL_IZDANJA spam from gmail.com
score GMAIL_IZDANJA 35.000
Content of
Bogdan,
I'm trying to make use of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AccessDB plugin.
This is what I have in config:
body GMAIL_IZDANJA eval:check_access_database('/etc/mail/gmail_spam.db')
describe GMAIL_IZDANJA spam from gmail.com
score GMAIL_IZDANJA 35.000
Content of /etc/mail/gmail_spam is
Mark Martinec wrote:
Bogdan,
I'm trying to make use of Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AccessDB plugin.
This is what I have in config:
body GMAIL_IZDANJA eval:check_access_database('/etc/mail/gmail_spam.db')
describe GMAIL_IZDANJA spam from gmail.com
score GMAIL_IZDANJA 35.000
Content of
Hoover Chan wrote:
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was
attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me
curious about the whole thing where any positive spam score is set as the
threshold but seeing junk mail coming in with negative
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:30 +0100, mouss wrote:
McDonald, Dan a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 14:56 -0400, Bryan Lee wrote:
My Spam assassin is run from /etc/mail/mimedefang-filter via the perl
module.
When running sa-update, do I need to run anything to make sure new rules
get
Bogdan,
The test is supposed to receive a header as argument, not a body:
thanks for the reply. What I am trying to do is actually have access map
of blacklisted email addresses or websites that are mentioned in the
*body* of email, not in header.
I'm afraid you'd need to enhance the
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Bogdan,
The test is supposed to receive a header as argument, not a body:
thanks for the reply. What I am trying to do is actually have access map
of blacklisted email addresses or websites that are mentioned in
I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
uribil and surbil. I checked one list on surbil and it isn't listed. I
guess I need to know how to fix/disable this module? As far as I can
tell EVERY email
I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
uribil and surbil.
That's a typical symptom if your DNS provider has switched to providing a
positive response to what should be NXDOMAIN results. Best
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:44 +0100, Ivan Savcic wrote:
The goal is to put the regexes, which are being searched for in the
body of the mail, out of the configuration file, to avoid clutter and
to allow easy addition of new regexes.
But have you got a plot for compiling the regexes when they've
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:46 -0400, klowther wrote:
I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
uribil and surbil. I checked one list on surbil and it isn't listed. I
guess I need to know how to
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:44 +0100, Ivan Savcic wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si
wrote:
Bogdan,
The test is supposed to receive a header as argument, not a body:
thanks for the reply. What I am trying to do is actually have access map
of
Jeff Mincy wrote:
Yow. The negative scoring bayes rules are extremely reliable when well
trained. Ham messages are not trying to evade the filter. Defeating
bayes with poison is mostly a myth. The random garbage might work the
first time but not the second time as long as you are training
Hello,
According to report from one of our customers it seems that this header is
being hit by multiple rules:
Received: from 217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz (217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz
[217.112.174.194]) (TLS: TLS1.0,192bits,RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1) by
mailhub3.nextra.sk with
Martin Gregorie wrote:
OTOH I have a similar plot. The idea is that mail from an exact address
that I've previously sent mail to will not be spam. My system consists
of two parts:
- the first automatically records every address I've sent mail to.
This uses a table in a PostgreSQL database
All,
I am looking for a few people to test my custom rules. I'm looking for
somebody to filter through their own SA installation and then follow up by
calling spamc to connect to my spamd setup. The reason I want to be second
is so that all the obvious spam gets captured first and following
At 07:46 23-03-2009, klowther wrote:
I started suddenly getting lots of bounces. I'm using the latest
Mandriva. I have traced it down to EVERY email getting points from
uribil and surbil. I checked one list on surbil and it isn't
listed. I guess I need to know how to fix/disable this
On 23-Mar-2009, at 10:14, Chris Barnes wrote:
But the problem remains. A simple glance at this list shows that
this happens often enough to be a fairly common problem.
Because people don't train bayes properly.
The question is: How does one fix the problem after it occurs?
Train bayes
Having gone over the FAQ and other doc-sections on the wiki, I haven't been
able to answer my questions. So here's hoping the user-community can help!
My company is currently using a home-brew solution for applying naive Bayes
filtering to data. Currently, what we're doing is basically spam
q...@usermail.com writes:
I am looking for a few people to test my custom rules. I'm looking
for somebody to filter through their own SA installation and then
follow up by calling spamc to connect to my spamd setup. The reason I
want to be second is so that all the obvious spam gets
From: Chris Barnes ch...@txbarnes.com
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:14:37 -0500
Jeff Mincy wrote:
Yow. The negative scoring bayes rules are extremely reliable when well
trained. Ham messages are not trying to evade the filter. Defeating
bayes with poison is mostly a
The whole error(s) read:
Mar 23 18:01:08 localhost spamd[3676]: dns: sendto() failed: Connection
refused
at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm line
395, GEN71 line 45.
Mar 23 18:01:08 localhost spamd[3676]: plugin: eval failed: oops, no key
at
Chris wrote:
I caused this myself I believe but I'm wondering why. I'm having issues
getting named to work correctly in chroot configuration, it will run but
when started reports zone files not found even though they are where I
have them in the named.conf file.
Are they in the path listed in
Randy J. Ray a écrit :
[snip]
if you want a bayes filter, bogofilter is a good one. if you want a
daemon, try dspam.
if you want to fight spam, ask open questions. SA is a good filter.
Bayes isn't as perfect as you might think.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
Hello,
According to report from one of our customers it seems that this header is
being hit by multiple rules:
Received: from 217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz (217-112-174-194.cust.avonet.cz
[217.112.174.194]) (TLS:
Chris,
Mar 23 18:01:08 localhost spamd[3676]: dns: sendto() failed:
Connection refused
at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm
line 395, GEN71 line 45.
man 2 sendto
[ECONNREFUSED] The socket received an ICMP destination
unreachable message from the
Hello John
Thanks for your reply. I am adding users to the white list and the black
list (in the SpamAssassin user preferences file) as follows:
blacklist_from *...@blacklist1.com
blacklist_from *...@blacklist2.com
blacklist_from *...@blacklist3.com
required_score 100
whitelist_from
dsh979 wrote:
Hello John
Thanks for your reply. I am adding users to the white list and the black
list (in the SpamAssassin user preferences file) as follows:
blacklist_from *...@blacklist1.com
blacklist_from *...@blacklist2.com
blacklist_from *...@blacklist3.com
required_score 100
Thanks for your reply. I am adding users to the white list and the black
list (in the SpamAssassin user preferences file) as follows:
snip
whitelist_from *...@whitelist1.com
whitelist_from should be used as a last resort; whitelist_from_auth and
whitelist_from_rcvd are significantly safer
Thank you for your reply Matt.
I did not realise that items listed on the white list or the black list
would still be subject to the operation/analysis of the SpamAssassin Rules.
You have asked why I have set the required score the 100. Lengthy
explanation (sorry). I have done this to
On Mon, March 23, 2009 10:58 pm, dsh979 wrote:
Thank you for your reply Matt.
I did not realise that items listed on the white list or the black list
would still be subject to the operation/analysis of the SpamAssassin
Rules.
You have asked why I have set the required score the 100.
31 matches
Mail list logo
