Hi,
On Wed, 19.08.2009 at 18:26:40 -0400, Dave dave.meh...@gmail.com wrote:
Postfix on my server, the backup mx is using qmail.
do you control the backup MX, or is it something external?
Unfortunately, plain qmail can't do that much to block spam w/o some
help. If you control the machine
Hi,
Erik Bloodaxe wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Erik Bloodaxe wrote:
I have a default install of Redhat 5.2. I have mail scanner using it
and it appears to be creating a large number of false positives. The
version of SpamAssassin is version 3.2.4 which is running on Perl
version 5.8.8. I
Is the backup on the same network as the primary? Do you have it
listed as a trusted machine in the local.cf file?
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:56:30 -0400
Dave dave.meh...@gmail.com wrote:
The backup is not on the same network as the primary and it
is not listed as a trusted machine in
On 19.08.09 17:36, Dave wrote:
Mail from my backup mx is not being scanned for spam as it's coming
in. Is this something i'd have to turn on at the MTA level, content filter,
or SA? A majority of stuff my backup mx sends me is spam and i'd like to get
it tagged as such.
simply do as
Hello to every body. Sorry If I'm repeating the subject, but I'm new
to the list, and I've been searching before about it with no success.
I'm having lot of incoming spam with an attached image which is flag
styled (as the one attached).
Text added to e-mail is a bogus one, never repeated,
Dave wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to add additional sa rules and wanted to use the sare
channels referenced by the wiki. I'm using sa 3.2.5 and when i atempted to
get updates from saupdates.openprotect.com the channel didn't exist. Has it
moved?
Thanks.
Dave.
Read the top of the
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 12:22 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
2009/8/20 Marc Muñoz Salvador m...@atcubic.com
Hello to every body. Sorry If I'm repeating the subject, but
I'm new to the list, and I've been searching before about it
with no success.
I'm
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Gary Smith wrote:
Aug 19 14:53:10 hsoakmsa03l02 spamd[28319]: spamd: result: Y 5 -
BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_RHS_DOB
On ons 19 aug 2009 14:26:31 CEST, Dan Schaefer wrote
Why haven't spammers think about this approach before? I can image it
is very difficult for Fuzzy OCR to tag this with a high score.
you belive fuzzyocr is buggy ?
http://pastebin.com/m247b74c8
already detected as spam, what more do
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 12:22 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
2009/8/20 Marc Muñoz Salvador m...@atcubic.com
Hello to every body. Sorry If I'm repeating the subject, but
I'm new to the list, and I've been searching before about it
with no success.
Aug 19 15:03:11 hsoakmsa03l02 spamd[28319]: spamd: result: Y 4 -
BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_RH
S_DOB
scantime=0.2,size=4543,user=filter,uid=124,required_score=0.0,rhost=10.
80.65.9,raddr=10.80.65.9,rport=53097,mid=509800d.5...@biblegame.info,
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Gary Smith wrote:
Aug 19 15:03:11 hsoakmsa03l02 spamd[28319]: spamd: result: Y 4 -
BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_RH
S_DOB
scantime=0.2,size=4543,user=filter,uid=124,required_score=0.0,rhost=10.
All BAYES_50? Silly question, but are you sure you're properly
training?
Running sa-learn as the right user, and all that?
I must have been tired. I thought I had run sa-learn --dump ealier, but I
guess I didn't. It looks like the new server has a very high ham rate and a
low spam rate.
Paul Houselander (SME) wrote:
However it seems to have evolved again and tesseract is not extracting
any useable words.
Obvisouly to early to tell how effective it is but ill update the list
of my findings.
I have received several of those.
You can get tesseract to recognize many
Read the top of the rulesemporium site:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/
SARE rules aren't being updated. Hence, sa-updating them is pointless.
Is it still recommended to run the SARE rules?
Marc Muñoz Salvador wrote:
Following Martin Hepworth's instructions, I've pasted source of two e-
mails:
http://pastebin.ca/1536577
http://pastebin.ca/1536583
D*mn. Your first post included the lots of price on two columns-style JPEG
that works well with my settings.
Those two
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 18:51 +0200, Marc Muñoz Salvador wrote:
Following Martin Hepworth's instructions, I've pasted source of two
e-mails:
The two I looked at in any detail made it obvious the From: address was
forged because it didn't agree with the earliest Received: header: not
even the
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Marc Mu?oz Salvador wrote:
Following Martin Hepworth's instructions, I've pasted source of two e-mails:
http: //pastebin.ca/1536577
http: //pastebin.ca/1536583
The headers on both of those spamples have been severely abridged. You
need to figure out how to get the
Hi,
Text added to e-mail is a bogus one, never repeated, same as the old styled
spam mail with attached images. The OCR doesn't detect nothing, I understand
because of flagged effect. Also, image file name changes, if it have.
A few of these have slipped through on my systems, but for the
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 14:07 -0400, Alex wrote:
A few of these have slipped through on my systems, but for the most
part, these rules have worked here:
mimeheader AS_090505_CDIS_INLINE Content-Disposition =~ /inline/
mimeheader AS_090508_CTYP_PNG Content-Type =~ /image\/png/
mimeheader
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:07 PM, MySQL Student wrote:
mimeheader AS_090508_CTYP_JPG Content-Type =~ /image\/jpg/
score AS_090508_CTYP_JPG 0.5
describe AS_090508_CTYP_JPG Rule by AS: Content-Type: JPG
This can probably be scored higher than the others. image/jpg isn't
a
Gary Smith wrote:
Read the top of the rulesemporium site:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/
SARE rules aren't being updated. Hence, sa-updating them is pointless.
Is it still recommended to run the SARE rules?
Try them and if they work, great.
Ted
Hi,
I've been using the junkmailfilter rules for a few days now, and it's
doing quite well. It occurred to me that I might be able to use the
RCVD_IN_JMF_W rule filter whitelisted domain mail, and use that to
train bayes ham.
Would this work? There of course would be mail from
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 14:28 -0400, Alex wrote:
I've been using the junkmailfilter rules for a few days now, and it's
doing quite well. It occurred to me that I might be able to use the
RCVD_IN_JMF_W rule filter whitelisted domain mail, and use that to
train bayes ham.
Would this work? There
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 19.08.09 00:48, mouss wrote:
The name of the rule is worng, but the result is ok. Instead of
dynamic, I suggest: UMO for Unidentifiable Mailing Object. whether
static-ip- is static or not doesn't matter. a lot of junk comes from
such hosts, and we can't
Hi,
Thanks. If the sare rules work great, is it standard practice to use
them and they catch what they catch or look elsewhere?
Thanks.
Dave.
-Original Message-
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:t...@ipinc.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Gary Smith
Cc: 'Matt
Dave wrote:
Hi,
Thanks. If the sare rules work great, is it standard practice to use
them and they catch what they catch or look elsewhere?
Pretty much yes. you can also modify them. You can also modify the
stock spamassassin rules.
There's only one rule to follow in spamassassin
Gary Smith wrote:
Read the top of the rulesemporium site:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/
SARE rules aren't being updated. Hence, sa-updating them is pointless.
Is it still recommended to run the SARE rules?
There's nothing wrong with running them if you want.. but using
sa-update
There's nothing wrong with running them if you want.. but using
sa-update on them regularly is utterly pointless..
Matt,
Thanks. I used them years ago back before rulesemporium actually existed, and
I know they had value at the time. I just didn't know if the rules were
migrated into
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 12:47 +0200, Marc Muñoz Salvador wrote:
Hello to every body. Sorry If I'm repeating the subject, but I'm new
to the list, and I've been searching before about it with no success.
I'm having lot of incoming spam with an attached image which is flag
styled (as the one
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:58:02 -0500
Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com wrote:
Ran it through sa-learn as spam, spamassassn -r and -t which scored
much better:
...
5.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to
Unfortunately that's not a good guide to future performance.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 09.08.09 09:20, Res wrote:
Correct, only relay for your own customers based on your own IP ranges,
pretty much removes abuse, and smtp-auth is only enabled on hosting
servers, hosting customers don't use end-users smtp, nor can end users
use
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Aha, so this is your point? You accept mail from your IP addresses, but not
from your customers roaming elsewhere? Bad for you. It was already discussed
here - you are going the wrong way.
On
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Kris Deugau wrote:
I'm having a bit of trouble being sure of what you're saying, but it sounds
like:
We don't use SMTP AUTH.
Correct (unless your a hosting customer) we use dedicated customer
outbound boxes.
We don't allow relay from outside our own netblocks.
Res wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Bullshit.
Bullshit to what?
Didn't we have an email a couple weeks ago talking about inappropriate
language on a public list and that it won't be tolerated?
At 07:43 PM 8/20/2009, you wrote:
Didn't we have an email a couple weeks ago talking about
inappropriate language on a public list and that it won't be tolerated?
I'd agree. Looking at his / her last 10 posts, each of them has at
least one swear in them. It's time for a ban, IMHO.
+1 to that.
I'm sick of seeing people being flamed in here. Makes you not want to post, TBH.
Michael Hutchinson
-Original Message-
From: Evan Platt [mailto:e...@espphotography.com]
Sent: Friday, 21 August 2009 3:18 p.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: your mail
At
37 matches
Mail list logo
