Thanx for your help, I will gice it a try.
By the glue I assume you mean you maildir or vdeliver?
Ned Slider wrote:
Osax wrote:
How to I disable spam checking for a domain.
Using spamassassin with mysql.
I have a server with multiple virtual domain,
I want to disable spam checking
Is sought.rules.yerp.org down? I got a timeout while running sa-update...
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/timeout-for-sought.rules.yerp.org-tp28324717p28324717.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello,
I always get this error (once a day)
Apr 22 14:07:35 stargate amavis[7147]: (!)Net::Server: 2010/04/22-14:07:35
HUP'ing server
after that, amavis down and can not connect to port 10024
Apr 22 14:08:06 stargate postfix/smtp[17561]: connect to
127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024: Connection
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
But, anyway, I see SA 3.3.1 comes with a very good HTMLEval plugin.
However,
it seems to me that it misses a way to, in example, count the length
of the
text commented out with respect to the uncommented one and eventually
trigger a rule if the ratio is above
hi,
the Perl community is going to have a Perl booth on LinuxTag Berlin in June.
We would like to represent a number of Perl based projects there.
Is there anyone from SpamAssasin team is around who would be
interested in participating (on some of the days) and show SpamAssasin
to the visitors?
Hi,
I'm getting this error when I run sa-update:
config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
/tmp/.spamassassin26787Cjo628tmp/72_active.cf: mimeheader
__TVD_MIME_ATT_AOPDF Content-Type =~
/^application\/octet-stream.*\.pdf/i
config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
On 22-Apr-2010, at 02:30, Personal Técnico wrote:
I'm getting this error when I run sa-update:
sa-update -D
and maybe
sa-update -V
?
--
Ahahahahaha! Ahahahaha! Aahahaha! BEWARE! Yrs sincerely The Opera
Ghost --Maskerade
Osax wrote:
By the glue I assume you mean you maildir or vdeliver?
Whatever mechanism you use to pass mail to SpamAssassin to be scanned.
Don't pass mail for domains you don't want scanned, just deliver
straight to the users mailbox (or do whatever else you may do with mail
after SA has
Hi,
I have a server with multiple virtual domain,
I want to disable spam checking on some of them.
Is this possible?
You can't disable a domain *in* SA, but you can whitelist a domain in
local.cf like so:
# Disable SpamAssassin for this user/domain
whitelist_to some...@example.com
Hi, following mail got through SpamAssassin today:
http://pastebin.com/Z50yqmij
I was just wondering why there were nearly none of standard SpamAssassin
rules hitting, it's even been whitelisted by HostKarma.
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0, required= 5.0, autolearn=no, shortcircuit=no
On 21-Apr-2010, at 14:58, Michael Scheidell wrote:
AYES_50=0.8, TML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_DATE=1.096, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.223,
NO_REAL_NAME=1, RELAY_COUNTRY_US=0.001, SARE_OEM_S_PRICE=1,
TO_EQ_FM_DIRECT_MX=0.001, TO_EQ_FM_HTML_DIRECT=1.728,
TO_EQ_FM_HTML_ONLY=0.001, T_LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.01
On tor 22 apr 2010 04:21:40 CEST, Chris wrote
Clam was running really slow and sucking a bunch of memory however, the
problem there was found to be that I had a mail.cvd and main.cld db, I
removed the .cld file and it seemed to speed up somewhat.
this one is really a design bug in clamav when
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:59:26 -0400
Micah Anderson mi...@riseup.net wrote:
I'm using the --randomize option to spamc, along with the -d switch
that has a hostname which resolves to multiple IP addresses.
Does the --randomize get passed the full set of IPs that are resolved
from the -d
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 02:05 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
On 22 April 2010 00:44, Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com wrote:
I've posted two files below, one is the time output
for a spam
and one
for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan
times have
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
per year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, LuKreme wrote:
On 21-Apr-2010, at 14:58, Michael Scheidell wrote:
BAYES_50=0.8, TML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_DATE=1.096,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.223, NO_REAL_NAME=1, RELAY_COUNTRY_US=0.001,
SARE_OEM_S_PRICE=1, TO_EQ_FM_DIRECT_MX=0.001,
TO_EQ_FM_HTML_DIRECT=1.728,
Hi all
There is anyway to bypass a spam when SPF check results result is
equal to 'SPF_PASS'?
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
There is anyway to bypass a spam when SPF check results result is
equal to 'SPF_PASS'?
The appropriate place to do things like that is in the glue layer.
It's not a good idea to whitelist on just SPF Pass. What is to prevent a
spammer from
Le 22/04/2010 15:13, John Hardin a écrit :
Bayes 50 is neutral and you're scoring it at 0.8?
Agreed that's not a good idea.
Except that 0.8 is the default score for BAYES_50 under 3.3.0 and 3.3.1...
John.
--
-- Over 4000 webcams from ski resorts around the world - www.snoweye.com
--
On tor 22 apr 2010 15:09:32 CEST, Rejaine Monteiro wrote
There is anyway to bypass a spam when SPF check results result is
equal to 'SPF_PASS'?
yes, but that rule will be silly
spammers can also just add a spf with ipv4:0.0.0.0/0 -all in it, so
atleast dont make spf pass stop just there
Sorry if I was not very clear (my english is a little poor)
in fact, I wanted to decrease the score obtained if SPF return OK
John Hardin escreveu:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
The appropriate place to do things like that is in the glue layer.
It's not a good idea to
On tor 22 apr 2010 15:20:47 CEST, John Hardin wrote
It's not a good idea to whitelist on just SPF Pass. What is to
prevent a spammer from publishing valid SPF records for their
sources and thus whitelisting themselves to you?
yep thats the problem, here i use def_whitelist_from_spf to grey
On tor 22 apr 2010 15:24:02 CEST, Rejaine Monteiro wrote
Sorry if I was not very clear (my english is a little poor)
in fact, I wanted to decrease the score obtained if SPF return OK
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF
read them, search for whitelist
and
Benny Pedersen escreveu:
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF
read them, search for whitelist and do test with spamassassin 21
-D -t hammsg | less //
ok, thanks for the tip!..
make sure you dont just give -100 for a possible spam msg :(
hohoho.. off
UCProtect and backscatterrer.org are BOTH doing this. In my opinion they even
could well be controlled by spammers and taking money on both ends of the this.
I personally feel abused by them since they appear to be stroking their lists
simply to make money.
Ron Smith
postmas...@pmbx.net
Kalpin Erlangga Silaen wrote:
I always get this error (once a day)
Apr 22 14:07:35 stargate amavis[7147]: (!)Net::Server: 2010/04/22-14:07:35
HUP'ing server
after that, amavis down and can not connect to port 10024
amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625)
Versions older than 2.7.0 (not yet
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Sorry if I was not very clear (my english is a little poor)
in fact, I wanted to decrease the score obtained if SPF return OK
Probably not a good idea. The last set of stats that I saw indicated
that SPF_PASS was more likely to occur in spam than in ham. This is why
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 13:53 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are
Nigel,
It takes two to tango.
1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
be having this issue.
2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the UCEPROTECT
zone file(s), they could simply remove your IP address.
3) If your recipient's ISP ran a local
29,148 messages : Host sending mail was in our local blocklist
How many entries? Does it just keep growing? We have a local one too,
and every so often correlate it with the public RBLs so as to not
duplicate the check and overhead.
They expire in 2 weeks. They should make it into a
hi,
I'm new to linux and Need help in configuring spamassassin on my mail
server,I'm using spamassassin-3.2.4-1.el4.1 on CentOS4 with
sendmail-8.13.1-3.3.el4
This is my local.cf
# This is the right place to customize your installation of SpamAssassin.
#
# See 'perldoc
Tux Techie wrote:
hi,
I'm new to linux and Need help in configuring spamassassin on my
mail server,I'm using spamassassin-3.2.4-1.el4.1 on CentOS4 with
sendmail-8.13.1-3.3.el4
This is my local.cf http://local.cf/
bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Flag
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 21:15 +0530, Tux Techie wrote:
I'm new to linux and Need help in configuring spamassassin on my mail
server,I'm using spamassassin-3.2.4-1.el4.1 on CentOS4 with
sendmail-8.13.1-3.3.el4
[ massive snip ]
This is my /etc/procmailrc
DROPPRIVS=yes
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/10 10:45 AM, Tux Techie wrote:
I'm new to linux and Need help in configuring spamassassin on my
mail server,I'm using spamassassin-3.2.4-1.el4.1 on CentOS4 with
My first guess without seeing real samples would be that you are
I am wondering how I can report spam to Spamhaus Spamcop sites if it
hasn't already been reported? I started to get massive spam from one
particular IP as shown below:
Apr 20 09:30:45 mail postgrey[2219]: action=greylist, reason=new,
client_name=hst1pilot.com, client_address=188.72.217.47,
Is there a process to report the IP so they can be black
listed from doing this to others?
One way is to go to SpamCop's website to report it.
www.spamcop.net/
Another (more automated way) is to use the following command:
spamassassin -r the_spam_message_file
Hope that helps.
Kaleb
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Sorry if I was not very clear (my english is a little poor)
in fact, I wanted to decrease the score obtained if SPF return OK
My point is still valid, you don't want to reduce the score on _just_ SPF
Pass.
Take a look at whitelist_auth.
John
Getting lots of twits sending out phishing emails 'from' twitter.com
(the spam looks good, the only thing they change is the a href in the
email, other than that, its exactly the twitter mail)
Twitter DKIM signs all their emails (and they come from
postmaster.twitter.com, NOT twitter.com)
I
Hi
I am trying to identify whether the AWL is working, I am no longer getting a
rule hit in the report.
What is the best way to see if its hitting as the spamassassin -D output
suggests it is working.
[29200] dbg: auto-whitelist: tie-ing to DB file of type DB_File R/W in
Hi,
How many entries? Does it just keep growing? We have a local one too,
and every so often correlate it with the public RBLs so as to not
duplicate the check and overhead.
They expire in 2 weeks. They should make it into a public RBL by
that time. Maybe it should even be shorter.
I'm not
Michael,
Getting lots of twits sending out phishing emails 'from' twitter.com
(the spam looks good, the only thing they change is the a href in the
email, other than that, its exactly the twitter mail)
Twitter DKIM signs all their emails (and they come from
postmaster.twitter.com, NOT
On 4/22/10 3:40 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
You don't have an author domain signature, the signature there
is a 3rd party signature, twitter.com != postmaster.twitter.com
DKIM-Signature: [...] d=twitter.com
From: Twitter@postmaster.twitter.com
'author domain signature' (AD) is the
You don't have an author domain signature, the signature there
is a 3rd party signature, twitter.com != postmaster.twitter.com
DKIM-Signature: [...] d=twitter.com
From: Twitter@postmaster.twitter.com
is there an author subdomain signature ?
No, it has no more value than any
Hello,
Please forgive me, if this question is more related to the glue than to SA
itself.
I have a mail server with low to moderate traffic.
Here is my setup:
Postfix invokes SA through the spam proxy daemon (spampd) in a setup so that
inbound spam can be rejected during the smtp
On 4/22/10 5:24 PM, Micah Anderson wrote:
In fact the whole thread here has continued on as a result of that very
reason why Debian did not update it. I'll cite it again for you[2]
The Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse source carries a license that is
free to organizations that do not
Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net writes:
Actually it's not even that. The notion that Debian spent effort
detecting and removing DCC source is rather farfetched.
Sorry, but you are pretty off here. Debian does this all the time. I'm
an official Debian Developer and I have personally been
On 4/22/2010 2:43 PM, Micah Anderson wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net writes:
Actually it's not even that. The notion that Debian spent effort
detecting and removing DCC source is rather farfetched.
Sorry, but you are pretty off here. Debian does this all the time. I'm
an official
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Mark Martinec
mark.martinec...@ijs.simark.martinec%2...@ijs.si
wrote:
Kalpin Erlangga Silaen wrote:
I always get this error (once a day)
Apr 22 14:07:35 stargate amavis[7147]: (!)Net::Server:
2010/04/22-14:07:35
HUP'ing server
after that,
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 08:44 -0400, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
Our scan time use to be much longer and it was because of clamav. I realized
that I was scanning with clamscan and not clamdscan.
The clamdscan uses the daemon that's already loaded, so it's not loading the
virus database everytime.
I've inserted score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0 without the quotes to the end of
your local.cf file to disable the rule for 2010 bug.
If i'm upgrading SA to 3.3.1, my mail processing is very slow and my server
load average is going up.
I've googled all the stuff in my local.cf its not inherited from
50 matches
Mail list logo
