On 07/03/2012 12:51 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 7/3/2012 12:25 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 7/3/2012 12:19 PM, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
Looking for some advice, hope it's OK to ask here. I have a few
customers over the past several months start getting an unusual amount
of messages being
Each message uses a different server with different server name and I
see no patterns except the style.
http://pastebin.com/sJp7Gb75
Thanks,
RRCR
On 09/13/11 10:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 09:48 -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Each message uses a different server with different server name and I
see no patterns except the style.
http://pastebin.com/sJp7Gb75
That scored around 12.6 here and all from the standard SA
On 09/13/11 10:27, Stefan König wrote:
Randy Ramsdell schrieb:
On 09/13/11 10:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 09:48 -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Each message uses a different server with different server name and I
see no patterns except the style.
http://pastebin.com
Max Dunlap wrote:
Haha, I'm sorry I accidently sent a message. But while I'm at it, I was
going to ask a question.
I just set up a healthy postfix server on ubuntu, I've been looking at
the
wiki and I'm not sure which way is the best to get myself setup with SA.
My
old method doesnt work
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:30:19 -0700
Danita Zanre dan...@caledonia.net wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
The irony is that you think that's a good idea.
-- David.
Not sure. If our mail servers
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell rramsd...@activedg.com wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Microsoft Windows is very common, but that doesn't make
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/1/11 9:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdellrramsd...@activedg.com wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
so we should
It appears mycingular ( iphone ) ips are listed on spamhaus ( XBL and
PBL ) for 8 days. I have reject at the smtpd level if found.
May want to look out for this.
Thanks,
RCR
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 21 dec 2010 18:39:52 CET, Randy Ramsdell wrote
It appears mycingular ( iphone ) ips are listed on spamhaus ( XBL
and PBL ) for 8 days. I have reject at the smtpd level if found.
May want to look out for this.
iphone ?
if mobile phones not using smtp auth
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 12/9/10 9:33 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I have been receiving bounces to my yahoo account for email I did not
send. From the pastebin, you see the email did originate from the
yahoo servers but is not in my sent directory. This is an interesting
case and I cannot
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 04/11/2010 8:11 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Moving back on-list, since it doesn't appear to be personally directed
at me.
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:22 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 04/11/2010 7:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
No, that requires the Subject
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 05/11/2010 10:58 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
You appear to have records of the same spam influencing your bayes
results (it hits BAYES_99, which is good). What are your Bayes threshold
settings?
Cheers,
Lawrence
I am not sure what you
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 05/11/2010 6:00 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 05/11/2010 10:58 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
You appear to have records of the same spam influencing your bayes
results (it hits BAYES_99, which is good). What
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed a bunch of spams coming in recently that have no To: and
Subject: and have cobbled together the following rule to combat them.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
# Message has empty To: and Subject: headers
# Likely spam
header __LW_EMPTY_SUBJECT
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 04/11/2010 6:35 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Are the Subject lines blank or missing from the body? And that goes
for the To also.
In the spam I am seeing, there are both present and empty.
Example
To:
Subject:
I ran a email through spamc and it hits missing
John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Kris Deugau wrote:
DNSBLs are pretty much useless, since the message *was* legitimately
relayed in from Hotmail.
A couple of times I've seen enough examples with similar enough URLs
to create a uri rule something like:
uri MISC_INFO
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Kris Deugau wrote:
DNSBLs are pretty much useless, since the message *was* legitimately
relayed in from Hotmail.
A couple of times I've seen enough examples with similar enough URLs
to create a uri rule something like:
uri
Gnanam wrote:
Hi,
My question is, after installation, spamassassin service file is not
available in the location /etc/init.d/spamassassin. Because of this
'service spamassassin start' says spamassassin: unrecognized service.
What could be the reason for spamassassin service file missing
Looking at the 3.3.1 install, it wants (well, would like...) module
LWP::UserAgent.
OK ... off to CPAN, but no simple LWP-UserAgent, only a bunch of
LWP-UserAgent-whatever. So, which one do I want?
TIA,
rnd
CPAN search is my friend... it's in libwww-perl!
You get too soon old and too late smart... :-)
rnd
_
From: Diffenderfer, Randy
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:24 PM
To: 'users@spamassassin.apache.org'
Subject: which LWP::UserAgent for 3.3.1
I was under the impression that there was a clear-cut way to use SA as a
factory within a custom perl wrapper (I have looked at the Mail::SpamAssassin
doco). My objective is to do various things to the parsed message, such as
distill out URLs for example.
Is there indeed a clear way to do
Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
Hello,
I have an error with SA using autolearn plugin:
Sep 20 12:25:06 hostname spamd[6157]: plugin: eval failed: bayes: (in
learn) locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp lockfile
/home/USER/.spamassassin/bayes.lock.host.domain.ltd.6157 for
I found an bug in spamassassin that can be reliably reproduced when
using our local rules. What would be interesting is to track down where
this bug is exactly.
1. The process runs @ 100% cpu and hangs there. Has t o be kill -9 'ed
2. I see no errors in spamassassin -D
For the time being I
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Randy Ramsdell rramsd...@activedg.com:
I found an bug in spamassassin that can be reliably reproduced when
using our local rules. What would be interesting is to track down
where this bug is exactly.
1. The process runs @ 100% cpu and hangs there. Has t o be kill
Dominic Benson wrote:
On 06/08/10 17:18, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Yeah that is the fastest way. :) I used a little diff formula and
found the issue. My I think this may not be the rule we were going
for but ...
body__RCR_MEGADK/.*(M.*E.*G.*A.*D.*K
Suhag P Desai wrote:
No even when I try to do spamd at very first time after reboot the server, I
get the same message,...
huh? See below.
Below are the output of
[r...@spd ~]# ps -ef | grep spamd
root 3519 3516 0 12:44 ?00:00:00 supervise spamd
root 3544 3519 0
given. The very reason we need you to dig deeper, provide debug logs,
header dumps at all stages -- or any evidence at all this might be SA.
Randy, any results? Did you find the cause for the issue?
At this time, I have not. Since the messages are originally scanned with
all the headers
RW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:59:24 -0400
Michael Scheidell scheid...@secnap.net wrote:
On 6/24/10 3:51 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
The danger comes when people use the PBL incorrectly and deep parse
all headers which *will* lead to copious FPs.
Either way, I'd have no hesitation
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/24/10 12:07 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Anyone receiving these? It is either a borked spam script or they are
probing. They come in with different headers and different body each
time so I am not sure how to mark or block them. Any suggestions would
be appreciated
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Randy Ramsdell,
Am 2010-06-17 10:38:08, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there
are no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall
seeing these in the past.
Hehehe... sounds like
David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
get us added to lists, but Michael stated then, check the blacklists to
see how to get removed. as if we are already on a list. We are not.
Back to the main issue.
Here is an example pastbin. http://pastebin.com/mJqRPzkv
I
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
Charles Gregory wrote:
This sounds to me like you are 'resending
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I have no problem going over there but I am not convinced that the
Amavis program is the problem. The header field is changed by
spamassassin. Doesn't the email simply get handed to Spamassasin by
Amavis where the headers
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there are no
received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall seeing
these in the past.
Thanks,
RCR
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/17/10 10:38 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there are
no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall
seeing these in the past.
its coming from you then :-(
or, your mail server is stripping
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/17/10 10:38 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
We are getting a ton of this type and it scores low because there are
no received headers. What is this type of mail? I do not recall
seeing these in the past.
its coming from you then :-(
or, your mail server is stripping
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/17/10 11:31 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
I just checked our spam reports and this rule never hits. It is not
locally generated email either or I can not find any coming from us.
This is an strange issue and I am not where to begin to determine
what is doing
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
This sounds to me like you are 'resending' the mail from a local
address to your mail server, rather
[09:23] botboy sa-learn { forget,spam,ham} SHOULD change the BAYES
scores correct?
[09:24] botboy We upgraded spamassassin and it just does not work like
it did before.
[09:24] botboy I would normally be able to learn as spam and change
the bayes score to a 3.5
[09:25] botboy but now i relearn
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/2/10 11:39 AM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
[09:23] botboy sa-learn { forget,spam,ham} SHOULD change the BAYES
scores correct?
[09:24] botboy We upgraded spamassassin and it just does not work
like it did before.
[09:24] botboy I would normally be able to learn as spam
Evan Platt wrote:
At 11:22 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
I have a postfix/SA setup and I was wondering if anyone knew how to
COPY an email marked as spam instead of redirecting.
Not this:
/^X-Spam-Flag: YES/ REDIRECT spam...@example.com
As that's really a postfix question, not a SpamAssassin
Seems like it's gonna cost some of the big boys a little coin...
http://detroit.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/de062209.htm
Let's hope there are more indictments where these came from!
rnd
Marc Perkel wrote:
err...@junkemailfilter.com will work. If you have suggestions for
automation I'm interested.
Bowie Bailey wrote:
That one also hit DNSWL_MED and actually ended up with a negative
score. I reported to dnswl via their website.
It would be useful to have a reporting
Igor Chudov wrote:
Just today a buyer reported that my reply to him ended up in his spam
folder. Concerned by this, I sent an email to my Yahoo! account and
that one disappeared somewhere. The one I sent to gmail, however, got
there quickly. I may be overreacting and, perhaps, it is a
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing a massive increase in connection attempts since 7am EDT
this morning.
Most is being rejected because of not existing users but the majority
that is getting through is hitting
Sanesecurity.Casino.11228.UNOFFICIAL.
I'm seeing this across 5 different
Ned Slider wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:08 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it
hits a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an
inline png:
Content-Type: image/png
Michael Scheidell wrote:
looks like mcafee sees a 20% drop in spam?
wonder what that is about. I'm not seeing a drop in ATTEMPTED spam (I
see MORE ATTEMPTED spam). Mostly this new 'blank email with a png' in
it.
Sanesecurity rules seem to be keeping up with it for the most part.
I wonder
Martin Hepworth wrote:
Spamcop stats don't show this - yes the number of picture spams is
going up, but not spam generally.
http://www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml?spamyear
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
2009/5/8 Michael Scheidell scheid...@secnap.net
mailto:scheid...@secnap.net
looks
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Hello,
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
the same.
Thanks in advance,
Regards, Adam.
You may be flooded
Charles Gregory wrote:
Just a quick question:
I'm noticing that these 'png' spams don't have a text section, or any
message body text, and yet my SA does not trigger on any 'message does
not contain text' rules? I've seen rules trigger when messages are a
high percentage of image versus
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
RW a écrit :
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:44:29 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 05.05.09 14:16, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image:
.
Thanks in advance for any help, advice, etc.
Randy
--
Randy J. Ray Oodle, Inc. http://www.oodle.com
rj...@corp.oodle.com
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 2009-01-06 22:19:39 GMT LuKreme kremels at kreme.com wrote:
If you want the real history of Habeas in a nutshell, the company went
to hell when Anne Mitchell left (the same Anne Mitchell who was part
of MAPS back in the day). She's now at the Institute for Spam
Hi,
Mail occasionally slows down here and the main issue we see is the very
long SA checks and SA TIMEOUTS. This forces us to drop the size mail we
scan and restart Amavis and Apamassasin otherwise the queues will grow
into the thousands. Also note that the Amavis daemons will be running at
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 07.01.09 11:46, Craig wrote:
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.2 HP
Randy rramsd...@livedatagroup.com 1/6/2009 2:42 PM
Post 3 similar messages on pastbin so that we can determine a common
factor between them. Use pastbin
dave_c00 wrote:
I dont have any package manager... The people we rent the server from are
absolutely useless and provide no help unless you pay them a small fortune.
My server details are as follows:
Linux 2.6.22-8-server i686 GNU/Linux
Perl 5.8
Spamassassin 3.2.5
I may appear thick but when
Craig wrote:
Hello All-
I have recently been getting MANY spam slipping through Spamassassin
and I am looking for help on how to stop. I have used Spamassassin
with Bayes successfully for many years now and once I train the system
on new spam, the system does an excellent job of stopping.
Craig wrote:
Randy rramsd...@livedatagroup.com 1/6/2009 2:18 PM
Craig wrote:
Hello All-
I have recently been getting MANY spam slipping through Spamassassin
and I am looking for help on how to stop. I have used Spamassassin
with Bayes successfully for many years now and once I train
Appriver.com, an e-mail filtering company, sends backskatter or it sure appears
so.
-- Forwarded Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:22:41 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: WARNING. Mail Delayed: Lose 20 pounds in 3 weeks!!!
This is a warning message only.
Your
Micah Anderson wrote:
I keep getting hit by phishing attacks, and they aren't being stopped by
anything I've thrown up in front of them:
postfix is doing:
reject_rbl_client b.barracudacentral.org,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client
ST_SPACES_BUMP 5
We are receiving lots of this. Also look out for the university degree
spam which seems new and using botnet.
Randy Ramsdell
Claudia Burman wrote:
...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ?
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from [...] (sending to my server)
Received: from pikachu.nic.ar (unknown [140.191.48.11])
by maderna.nic.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E07D7049;
Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:19 -0200
Ken A wrote:
Randy wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Why would a botnet waste resources by sending tens of thousands of
spam to a single e-mail address?
Is it really a spambot or could it be a DDOS attack?
Martin
It is both but not actually. :)
It appears to be a spambot ( botnet
ram wrote:
I am seeing a clear downtrend in the number for spams hitting our
servers, I am not sure why ? Since Last week spams are at 50% of what
they used to be last month. Is this what you all are seeing
But the irritant 419's are still coming in ( and some get past SA ),
in many new
metamorph wrote:
James Lay wrote:
On 6/22/08 9:30 PM, metamorph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spamassassin/Clamav/Ubuntu/PHP5/Apache2/citadel/
I just installed spamassasin and tested it with gtube and it worked, but
when I tried to install clamav it still lets the EICAR files through. I
almaren wrote:
Is it possible to somehow tell spamassassin to move all messages marked as
spam directly into the spam/ham/trash folders ?
The thing is I'm running backups on my mailbox and although I omit
spam/ham/trash I do collect the mails from my inbox, and in most cases there
are 40-50
almaren wrote:
well first of all - thanks for the quick response :)
John Hardin wrote:
You didn't explain your MTA tool chain, so we have no idea how to
recommend configuring it to change where messages scored as spammy get
saved.
Tell us what does delivery (e.g. procmail) in your
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
almaren wrote:
Is it possible to somehow tell spamassassin to move all
messages marked as spam directly into the spam/ham/trash
folders ?
The thing is I'm running backups on my mailbox and
although I omit spam/ham/trash I do collect the mails
from my inbox, and in
Matt Kettler wrote:
Joseph Brennan wrote:
I was surprised that this rule...
uri CU_CN_LINK /http:..\w+\.cn\b/
matches not only this...
a href=http://foobar.cn;
but also this...
a href=http://www.columbia.edu/foo.html;KooXoo Buys Kuxun.cn
Domain/a
First, I did not realize that
ram wrote:
Now google docs abuse spam.
Spammer is using the docs page with a id from google. Atleast google
should have a decent abuse reporting system
This mail went by almost clean, Are there any rules I am missing
https://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/spamgd.txt
Thanks
Ram
I am slow.
Philippe Couas wrote:
Hi,
I have an Server programm sending mail to an PC. This PC reading mail
then forward it to user group.
Mails are reading correctly, but when it was forwarded, it is SPAMMED
with
FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK 4.1
How could i avoid it ?
Regards
Philippe
Find out why it is being
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi Matus:
Here's the header. We're seeing a lot of these now:
Received: from unknown (HELO jade.xx.com) (216.99.193.136)
by 0 with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 6 May 2008 19:13:06
-
Received: from server (216-99-214-161.dsl.aracnet.com
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi Randy - here's the whole thing:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 26003 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2008 19:13:09 -
Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 25931, pid: 25942, t: 2.6786s
scanners: clamav: 0.88/m:45/d:5939
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi Randy - here's the whole thing:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 26003 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2008 19:13:09 -
Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 25931, pid: 25942, t: 2.6786s
scanners
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This
is free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest numbered fake MX record. Here's how you would
Marc Perkel wrote:
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
DAve wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Looking for a few volunteers who want to reduce their spambot spam
and at the same time help me track spambots for my black list. This
is free and mutual benefit. I (junkemailfilter.com) want to be your
highest
Ross Boylan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 13:54 -0400, Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
OPTIONS=--create-prefs --max-children 5 --helper-home-dir \
--username=mail --socketpath=/var/run/spamd/socket
I'm running on a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading, which appears as 2 CPU's
to the OSs.
Bookworm wrote:
I'm starting to see some new phishing/scam attempts.
What I was thinking was that it might be worthwhile to add a rule to not
so much check links, but count periods.
I was going to put in the web address that I received as an example,
but I think that's why this is a second
Bookworm wrote:
I'm starting to see some new phishing/scam attempts.
What I was thinking was that it might be worthwhile to add a rule to
not so much check links, but count periods.
Here's the example that just came in my email -
(removing http:// ) -
mouss wrote:
Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m16055c85
Content analysis details: (9.6 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
1.5 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL
Tony Bunce wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm starting to see a noticeable amount of message sneak by spamassassin with
scores mostly the 3-4 range but some as low as 1 point.
I'm running 3.2.4 with SARE, sough, and Botnet. We don't use bayes. Here are
some samples of messages that have got through:
Ed Kasky wrote:
I can't seem to catch these emails with blank bodies. I upped the
BLANK_LINES_80_90 score to 3 but the email below didn't get a hit off
the rule.
Is there another rule that I don't know about that is designed for
blank message bodies?
Thanks in advance on this one. These
Andrew Hearn wrote:
http://pastebin.ca/961075
I've only seen one so far but apart from the 0.0 BAYES_50 (I will
learn this message), does anyone have rules that pushes this kind of
message over 5.0?
thanks!
Andrew
If you learn the message which = 3.5 wouldn't that put the score +5?
don't know
for sure, but it says that the title is untitled so I would add a title.
Randy Ramsdell
Drew Burchett wrote:
I've noticed a new trend in spam on my mail server that is getting by
SpamAssassin. The spammer is creating his message and then attach a
couple of garbage PDFs to the email. These PDFs make it too large for
SpamAssassin to scan the message, so it gets by the system. I
want some patent issues creeping in.
Randy Ramsdell
Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:48:37AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Drew Burchett wrote:
I've noticed a new trend in spam on my mail server that is getting by
SpamAssassin. The spammer is creating his message and then attach a
couple of garbage PDFs to the email
Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:23:14AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
You can use spamassassin and clamav with or without Amavis, but to check
the message, you must make a system wide change that will affect every
message. Bypassing file size limits with any of those setups
Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:16:32AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:23:14AM -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
You can use spamassassin and clamav with or without Amavis, but to
check the message, you must make a system wide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the header info. What is the alternate solution to using
whitelist_from ? I been also trying to setup AWL via MySQL.no
luck on that.
I use Exim for mail then , it relays to Lotus Domino.if that helps.
Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 10.0
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:04 -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Of course, now that I've used the word whore three times and quoted it
once I'm sure I'll get a deluge of bounces (not rejects) from people
running Microsoft's Antigen for SMTP.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
I wonder if SPF rules shouldn't be considered network... they require DNS
lookups, don't they?
Yes. Network related.
ADVANCE_FEE_1 Appears to be advance fee fraud (Nigerian 419)
-1.2 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Thanks,
Randy Ramsdell
ADVANCE_FEE_1 Appears to be advance fee
fraud (Nigerian 419) -1.2 AWLAWL:
From: address is in the auto white-list
Thanks,
Randy Ramsdell
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 09:21 -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Hi,
One thing I do not understand regarding AWL and BAYES. When a message is
reported to me as spam and was not marked as spam, I test is using debug
before and after sa-learn. Each time I do
with
blocking or adding a high score for the word Whore and could do
something with the word Schoolgirl.
Randy Ramsdell
Matt wrote:
Is anyone else having issues sending mail to Yahoo?
Yes. I have heard using Domainkeys or DKIM helps greatly? Is that
true? We have not implemented it yet but do use SPF records which are
much easier to implement with Exim or any MTA and do mostly the same
thing if you ask
Massimiliano Marini wrote:
System: Debian with Qmail + QmailScanner + SpamAssassins + ClamAV
Installation: qmailrocks.org
I've updated SA (original from qmailrocks.org 3.0.2) to 3.2.4
my locale.cf is :
rewrite_header Subject *SPAM*
report_safe 0
required_score 4
required_hits 5
use_bayes 1
numbered e-mail
accounts, then you will receive bulk mail.
Randy Ramsdell
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
