Does anyone know how a rule can be written to compare two header markers for
similar info? I don't think SA can do variable storage so I was thinking maybe
a regex rule that normalizes what I want to focus on from a header in the regex
search of another header. For example, let's say that I
The old version will still work. 1.5.2 is working for me except that since
starting to use it, I'm seeing more SA timeouts than before. So on one box,
I've gone back to 1.01 to confirm that it is iXhash 1.5.2
-Original Message-
From: RobertH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
Yep. Timeouts have stopped on the node that I switched back to iXhash 1.0.1.
-Original Message-
From: Rose, Bobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:22 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Bug in iXhash plugin - fixed version available
The old
I just tried again with this 1.5.2 version and on box it times out querying and
on another it seems to run but no hits again. Both my boxes are SA3.2.5.
Does anyone have a message that is known to have hashes on any of iXhash hosts?
-Original Message-
From: Giampaolo Tomassoni
Has anyone who switched to 1.5 of iXHash received any hits? I haven't seen any
since switching. One thing that I've noticed is if I pass the same message
thru SA using the old iXhash, the hash is computed via Method 1 and 2, if I use
1.5 of iXhash, it's only computed using method 2
On one
I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
(216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
with the RFCs.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm staring to see BATV use increasing. Has anyone thought about how
this effects whitelists, mta acls, etc? It looks like such things are
broken because if an end-user whitelists [EMAIL PROTECTED] and BATV has the
mail from as [EMAIL PROTECTED], then that whitelisting has no
effect. And since
It does makes sense that they would list unused/unowned netblocks in
APNIC in their database probably because of the probability that such
blocks would get assigned to an ISP which more than likely offer it up
as dynamic. I haven't looked there in a while but I thought it
explained conditions
I just checked my logs because I was surprised to here this and it looks
like 82.94.255.100:24441 is what I'm still using and my
MailScanner-SpamAssassin log entries are still showing that sa rule
being tripped by some transactions. 263 so far today and 1740 yesterday
average sa-checked messages
Is it possible to have a rule that looks at the SA checks already
performed and score based off that. For example, I'm thinking about a
rule that offsets a negative Bayes/CRM114 value if DCC and RAZOR or some
other rules checks have tripped.
-=B
I thought that was the purpose of the pyzor discover command? Who
maintains 82.94.255.100 as it doesn't get listed with pyzor discover.
-Original Message-
From: User for SpamAssassin Mail List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 6:56 PM
To: Gary V
Cc:
I'm seeing the same kind of messages mentioned after compiling from
source on Redhat ES4 and running make test.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel J McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:35 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Apache
Does anyone know why the UNDISC_RECIPS was removed from
20_head_tests.cf tests? I searched the dev lists and it's mentioned in
the context of being obsolete when ran against the corpus but I've seen
alot of spam that is seen as being sent to undisclosed-recipients (aka
BCC). I've added it to my
The ImageInfo packaged with 3.2.0 isn't the latest version from SARE as
it's missing the image_name_regex method.
-=B
So what you're saying is that the rule that people running
listservers should maintain valid recipients who want to receive messages from
the list shouldn't be followed just because it's a list about an antispam
product? The last time I checked, the most common reason for spamcop lists
is
But windows patches are free. Even if you are using an illegal copy of
windows, you can still manually download and install the patches. It's
Microsoft Update where they mostly have the genuine windows verification
code. Even Redhat forces you to pay subscriptions for their autoupdate
What am I missing? I updated but not png isn't working. If I switch to
debug logging 2 I see in the log when I run the sample thru.
[2006-08-26 18:16:40] Debug mode: Analyzing file with content-type
image/png
[2006-08-26 18:16:40] Debug mode: Image type not recognized, unknown
format. Skipping
Is anyone else having problems getting to www.apache.org? I've tried
from work and from home. The site acts like it's trying to load and
then eventually gives the generic cannot find server or DNS error. It's
not DNS because the FQDN resolves.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even though zdnet.com shouldn't be in SURBL, wouldn't having
chkpt.zdnet.com (the actually site doing the redirect) be in SURBL?
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:38 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Cc: SURBL Discuss
Wouldn't this just be something that SURBL should take care of? If this
URL is the source of spam then it should be in SURBL regardless if it's
in the zdnet.com domain. Right!?
-Original Message-
From: Rosenbaum, Larry M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:35 AM
But doesn't the licensing change have more to do with people setting up
there own private database of hashes and not so much a case of querying
the public databases which most SA people are doing?
-Original Message-
From: Greg Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 19,
But in my test messages the email address wasn't in the form of a URI.
It was just the email address. I even used pine for a test to make sure
it was a gui client doing some reformatting business.
Do we know if it's possible to know if the results from SBL are for the
domain of the URI being
.
Any idea on how to limit the scope to just the URI at it's face value?
-Original Message-
From: Rose, Bobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:14 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: URI Tests and Japanese Chars
I have a user that is of Japanese origin
This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it down. No real mailto URI
unless there is some translation going on with email addresses embedded in the
body by the email client on send. At first, I just thought it might be a bug
since the messages were using ISO-2022-JP
I have a user that is of Japanese origin and who converses with other
individuals in Japan in his same field of study. The messages they send
are in Japanese and trip the URI_SBL rule. These people are in
different .jp domains and I really don't want to get into the
administrative overhead of
25 matches
Mail list logo
