On 25/10/10 04:21, Dennis German wrote:
Is there? should there be a rule for a header like:
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
There was a rule UNDISC_RECIPS in version 3.1, and it scored about 0.8
points. I don't know why it was removed; presumably it hit too much ham.
It used to go:
header
On Sunday 24 October 2010 14:34:04 escalera wrote:
Fol all messages, spamassassin takes 14++ seconds. Version: 3.3.1
Debuging it, the times are:
Oct 24 14:03:20 email spamd[22477]: timing: total 14237 ms -
read_scoreonly_config: 4 (0.0%),
signal_user_changed: 6 (0.0%),
parse: 6 (0.0%),
On søn 24 okt 2010 22:33:21 CEST, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote
I am writing a rule that deals with spam that claims to be coming
from AOL's webmail client, where the e-mail has malformed HTML,
references to remote images, and a high ratio of images to content.
I guess I will have to find another
On 10/24, Dennis German wrote:
Is there? should there be a rule for a header like:
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
There is a meta rule in spamassassin version 3.3.1:
header __TO_UNDISCLOSEDTo =~
/(?:undisclosed-recipients|destinataires inconnus):/i
It has no score on its own, and
On Sunday 24 October 2010 16:09:08 Cedric Knight wrote:
I'm trying to get some performance data on a customised ruleset using
the instructions at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ProfilingRulesWithDprof
and have two problems.
Firstly, I'm not actually getting any *_body_test or
Hi all,
a couple of spam email messages got passed our spamassassin scanner
today, and on investigation I found some odd behaviour. Our mail
system scans via a pipe using the following command
/usr/local/bin/spamc -u mailnull. If I cat the spam mail file in
question by doing a cat and
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
The dodgy email contains an attachment, if I make a copy of the mail
file and delete the email attachment and then scan via scanc it IS
correctly processed and marked as spam. The file with attachment is only
600K so I dont see why this should
Quoting John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org:
Yes, the default size limit on messages that spamc enforces is less
than 600k.
If you want to scan larger messages you must override that default.
Please see the list archives for the pros and cons.
Ah ok! Thanks! Think I can up it to at least 1Mb
In case its of interested to the list, the spam in question gets very
high spamassassin rating of 15.3 but was passing by the scanner on the
size limit. The attachment is a JPG of 600k which is a scan of a scam
600k JPEG? That'd be about 800k base64 encoded.
letter about bank transfers
Thanks
This solved my problem.
Mark Martinec wrote:
On Sunday 24 October 2010 14:34:04 escalera wrote:
Fol all messages, spamassassin takes 14++ seconds. Version: 3.3.1
Debuging it, the times are:
Oct 24 14:03:20 email spamd[22477]: timing: total 14237 ms -
read_scoreonly_config: 4
On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
Royce Williams wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Michael Scheidell
michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
On 10/21/10 8:50 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I'd
On man 25 okt 2010 21:24:38 CEST, Dennis German wrote
Have you pulled your own data from auto-whitelist ?
or use spamcop worst spam ipranges ?
awl is usefull if one change the default mask to /32
else the ip counts will be to fussy to make anything there
--
xpoint
12 matches
Mail list logo
