Re: ancient perl versions

Ted was remarkably impolite the way he phrased it. BUT, I will say as a practical matter microprint emails do get rather short shrift from me when scanning through message threads. I seldom dig in here of late. But I do scan through the messages which look interesting and sometimes offer such ad

Re: ancient perl versions

Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man. {+_+} On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well,

Re: ancient perl versions

On 2014-12-04 17:06, Noel Butler wrote: On 05/12/2014 06:19, jdow wrote: Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 yea

Re: ancient perl versions

On 2014-12-04 13:29, Bob Proulx wrote: jdow wrote: footnotes: Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old (lose me

Re: ancient perl versions

On 2014-12-03 15:55, Noel Butler wrote: On 04/12/2014 00:28, Greg Troxel wrote: ... footnotes: I use slackware, yes its releases come with latest versions of most things, and updates move with upstreams due to slackwares philosophy and releases are maintained for usually 5 or more years, but e

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-12-03 15:39, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/12/2014 21:57, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Sure, if that was truly the case nor would I, but if you are running that old perl, there is plenty of stuff thats outdated, and not all of the goodness gets backports, not just with perl, but with most other t

Re: ancient perl versions

I'm only expecting new rules sets to work, sir. I still run a lamentably antique version of SA with my middle aged version of perl. {o.o} On 2014-12-03 06:28, Greg Troxel wrote: I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with old versions of tools and expecting to run n

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote: On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote: On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote: On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wr

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote: On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote: On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote: > > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 501 > test so I

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-12-01 12:18, Burnie wrote: On 12/01/2014 08:50 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote: $ spamassassin --version SpamAssassin version 3.3.2 running on Perl version 5.14.2 if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01 metaPDS_FROM_2_EMAILS __P

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 18:46, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote: OK, would this work? Use the fact that the thing defaults to a string. I would "guess" the value would be "perl_version". if (( perl_version != "perl_version" ) && ( perl_ve

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 17:16, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote: On 2014-11-30 14:29, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > > On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote: > > > > >

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 17:12, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Bob Proulx wrote: I am hoping this won't make you gun-shy from continuing your fine work on the project. Please don't let this minor bump in the road discourage you from future work. That would be a tragedy for the project and for t

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 15:00, Benny Pedersen wrote: On 30. nov. 2014 23.15.50 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: >>> if version > 3.004001 >>>if perl_version >= 5.01 >>> body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/ >>>endif >>> endif What do you see wrong with the use of th

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 14:30, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 11/30/2014 5:20 PM, jdow wrote: Would a corrected syntax version of this work? if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01 body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/ endif {^_^} The core issue is that only SA currently in

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 14:29, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote: > > > if version > 3.004001 > > if perl_version >= 5.01 > > body NO

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 13:58, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote: On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote: if version > 3.004001 if perl_version >= 5.01 body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/ endif endif If this works now in spa

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 13:13, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote: 5) make the condition to the SA version, there are already ton's of "if (version > = 3.004000)" rules and so it needs just to depend on SA bigger than 3.4.0 instead of the perl check why that would work? well, ol

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

Perhaps the rules that need the version check could be put into a separate file that is only used with SA version 3.4.x and above. It might be possible to get the appropriate sa_update patch for older versions through Red Hat, if that is needed. It might not be if 3.3.x does not load rule files

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

How does the usual person not a member of the right mailing lists learn of this patch? An hour spent Googling and vetting patches is an hour taken from my life time. Fortunately for me I was still a member of this list. So I learned I can just ignore the fool thing cluttering my mailbox. (I may

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 12:19, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 11/30/2014 11:17 AM, jdow wrote: Ted, I simply do not feel well enough just now to be nice. I reiterate my prior observation about vaguely stinky and spludgy material such as emanates from the South end of North facing fertile male bovines. I

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 11:58, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 11/30/2014 11:06 AM, jdow wrote: On 2014-11-30 10:48, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 11/29/2014 8:39 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 29.11.2014 um 23:27 schrieb John Hardin: However, it is a *warning*, not

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

John, if you make it a warning - warn ONCE not ever blessed time the file is run and CLEARLY state this is a warning only and is not fatal. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE {o.o} On 2014-11-30 11:11, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Dave Pooser wrote: On 11/30/14 12:34 PM, "Paul R. Ganci" wrote:

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

Ted, I simply do not feel well enough just now to be nice. I reiterate my prior observation about vaguely stinky and spludgy material such as emanates from the South end of North facing fertile male bovines. I have enough headaches with pure distro modules. I really REALLY *R*E*A*L*L*Y* do not

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 10:48, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 11/29/2014 8:39 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 29.11.2014 um 23:27 schrieb John Hardin: However, it is a *warning*, not a fatal error. And it's better than the rule killing lint and blocking sa-update compl

Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric

On 2014-11-30 03:08, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 20:39 -0800, John Hardin wrote: But this effectively means we cannot add new features to SA conditionals because they might do this to older installs. Can SA set a $too_old flag to say that that the Perl version number check fai

Re: procmail

On 2014-10-28 11:24, David F. Skoll wrote: On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:24:37 -0700 jdow wrote: Sure, but that doesn't mean a consummate chef need fear them! Nonetheless one should keep bare knife switches away from said chef lest he forget that being an consummate expert in one field doe

Re: procmail

On 2014-10-28 06:09, David F. Skoll wrote: On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:28:19 +0100 "Andrzej A. Filip" wrote: It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl. I have very unusual filtering requirements (for example, rules that change depending on time-of-day or depending on who has

Re: unsubscribe

Is ezmlm == majordomo? As I am saying he ought to take some time out, think, and gather in some clues. If he is wise he'll treat it as a learning experience. Only a few people manage to miss this misadventure with mailing lists at least once in their lives. But when they sign it with "system adm

Re: unsubscribe

inistrator Nebraska Wesleyan University ⌘ On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:47 PM, jdow wrote: Surely a system administrator, especially one for Linux/UNIX, would know to look in the message headers for things hints if there are none lurking at the bottom of the messages. That is where said syste

Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)

Do the pertinent "we" have more important things to do? I suspect yes. I'd expect that the proper denizens for this list are not all that naive. {^_^} On 2014-10-27 13:45, David F. Skoll wrote: So... How hard would it be to have the mailing list quarantine a message whose subject consists sol

Re: unsubscribe

Surely a system administrator, especially one for Linux/UNIX, would know to look in the message headers for things hints if there are none lurking at the bottom of the messages. That is where said system administrator would find things like this: list-unsubscribe:

Re: Dumping email with blank To: header ?

On 2014-09-04 10:51, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, LuKreme wrote: For the record, using sql for babes is considerably faster. Is that anything like "SQL for Dummies"? John, I was wondering if there was an SQL for boys, too. {O,o}

Re: Warning from users@spamassassin.apache.org

Gee, Mr. ezmlm program, it seems your own mail server is borked. If you look at the copy of the bounced message sample at the end of your own message it was your own Apache Mailer Daemon that bounced the message without including any body. Oh well. {^_-} On 2014/04/29 21:17, users-h...@spamassas

Re: Rules not working

Note - your parameters may be different. The "ps -AF" command gives the right values. {^_-} On 2013/09/08 19:16, Raymond Jette wrote: Thank you. I will re-run it with the correct parameters. ____ From: jdow [j...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, Se

Re: Rules not working

that. The -u option is not being used. Thanks for the help. I'm going to keep working at this. ____ From: jdow [j...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 10:19 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Rules not working That offer

Re: Rules not working

OW,SPF_PASS,match_all scantime=1.4,size=11207,user=nobody,uid=99,required_score=6.0,rhost=localhost.localdomain,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=45086,mid=,autolearn=unavailable It appears to hit here but not on real mail. Any ideas? From: jdow [j...

Re: Rules not working

the help. ____ From: jdow [j...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 9:20 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Rules not working Have you generated said debug output by running spamd with the -D flag? That is the debug output that matters. Also run spamassassin -D as a bog

Re: Rules not working

5.423 [10285] dbg: config: read file /etc/mail/spamassassin/a.cf Thanks. ____ From: jdow [j...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 9:20 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Rules not working Have you generated said debug output by runni

Re: Rules not working

Yes, the debug output shows that the files and rules were found and matched against the test message. From: jdow [j...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 9:01 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Rules not working Did you set permiss

Re: Rules not working

. I restarted everything. When this did not work I rebooted the server. This still did not help. From: jdow [j...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:21 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Rules not working On 2013/09/08 16:55

Re: Rules not working

On 2013/09/08 16:55, Raymond Jette wrote: When I add add custom rules to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf the rules work as expected. If I create any *.cf file and put the rules in they do not work. My test rule is: body test_match_all /.*/ scoretest_match_all -0.01 Rules on

Re: Dev-nulling is a bad idea [Was: Verifying .procmailrc settings to delete high scoring spam messages]

On 2013/04/22 06:27, Thomas Cameron wrote: On 04/08/2013 03:52 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote: On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote: [...] I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I want to use the X-S

Re: NJABL is history

On 2013/03/05 05:09, Axb wrote: On 03/05/2013 02:01 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 3/1/2013 6:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: score RCVD_IN_NJABL_CGI 0 score RCVD_IN_NJABL_MULTI 0 score RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY 0 score RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY 0 score RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM 0 On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Kevi

Re: Sought/Rules.yerp.org problem - Re: [Fwd: Cron /usr/share/spamassassin/sa-update.cron -D 2>&1 | tee -a /var/log/sa-update.log]

It seems to have just been repaired within the last couple hours. {^_^} Joanne On 2013/02/18 13:04, mouss wrote: I hope Justin has no problems. if anybody has news, please share that with me. Le 15/02/2013 13:42, Kevin A. McGrail a écrit : On 2/14/2013 6:35 PM, Emmett Culley wrote: Hi KAM,

Re: Calling spamassassin directly yields very different results than calling spamassassin via amavis-new

On 2013/01/15 17:23, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, jdow wrote: On 2013/01/15 08:26, Ben Johnson wrote: Based on my responses, what's the next move? Backup the Bayes DB, wipe it, and feed my corpus through the ol' chipper? (Sure to infuriate BUT - read the WHOLE note.

Re: Calling spamassassin directly yields very different results than calling spamassassin via amavis-new

On 2013/01/15 08:26, Ben Johnson wrote: Based on my responses, what's the next move? Backup the Bayes DB, wipe it, and feed my corpus through the ol' chipper? (Sure to infuriate BUT - read the WHOLE note.) Are you sure your Bayes database is well trained? But let's change that to, "Is the Bay

Re: Calling spamassassin directly yields very different results than calling spamassassin via amavis-new

On 2013/01/15 07:27, Ben Johnson wrote: On 1/14/2013 7:48 PM, Noel wrote: On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: jdow, Noel, and John, I can't thank you enough for your very thorough responses. Your time is valuable and I sincerely appreciate your willingness to help. Glad it was

Re: Calling spamassassin directly yields very different results than calling spamassassin via amavis-new

On 2013/01/14 12:59, Ben Johnson wrote: On 1/14/2013 2:49 PM, RW wrote: On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:24:55 -0500 Ben Johnson wrote: A clear pattern has emerged: the X-Spam-Status headers for very obviously spammy messages never contain evidence that network tests contributed to their SA scores.

Re: Calling spamassassin directly yields very different results than calling spamassassin via amavis-new

On 2013/01/14 10:24, Ben Johnson wrote: On 1/11/2013 4:27 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: I enabled Amavis's SA debugging mode on the server in question and was able to extract the debug output for two messages that seem like they should definitely be classified as spam. Message #1: http://pastebin.co

Re: spamc exit code for exceeding max size

On 2013/01/11 10:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 1/11/2013 1:10 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 1/10/2013 8:46 PM, jdow wrote: I'd suggest an option similar to the header option. pass_errors5,18,21,2,6 ignore_errors23,3,19 Spamc curr

Re: spamc exit code for exceeding max size

On 2013/01/10 14:16, Tom Hendrikx wrote: On 10-01-13 22:43, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 1/10/2013 3:16 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: Since I wrap spamc with a different programming language, I have all the tools available to handle any error condition: detecting EX_TOOBIG is however not possible. I

Re: Scoring of old rules is still done

sa-update should have picked up the mailspike rules. I suppose you did something to remove updates_spamassassin_org/20_mailspike.cf. And then you did nothing to the updates_spamassassin_org/72_scores.cf scores file to remove scores for mailspike. If you wanted mailspike out of there the better ap

Re: HK_LOTTO hitting ham from the UK national lottery

On 2012/10/31 14:05, John Hardin wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Shouldn't it be set via GA in 72_scores.cf ? Doesn't sound like a bad idea to comment it in 50_scores.cf and let it float. +1. That's what threw me when I did my quickie analysis early on. RaaallY? W

Re: ****SPAM**** (10.1 / 5.0) RE: Trouble shooting an installation of Spam Assassin for WindowsDate: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:50:01 -0700

On 2012/07/27 09:53, Amber Clark wrote: In general, the install of SpamAssassin is working. I am having a couple of small problems. Let me go back to those: ... /The Platform:/ Here is specific information about the installation. Windows Server 2003 SpamAssassin 3.3.2 Perl 5.8.9 spamd.exe

Re: ****SPAM**** (10.1 / 5.0) RE: Trouble shooting an installation of Spam Assassin for WindowsDate: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:50:01 -0700

Amber, as a long time user of SpamAssassin might I ever so strongly suggest you do NOT throw away spam marked email if there is ANY possibility that something critical is present in your received emails, like signup replies for mailing lists. Use a markup header such as this one in your local.cf

Re: 419 spammers aren't morons after all

On 2012/06/22 14:23, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 6/22/2012 3:13 PM, John Hardin wrote: Not sure if everybody's seen this yet: http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/167719/WhyFromNigeria.pdf Some discussion here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/far-fetched_sca.html It's certainly

Re: SELL CVV GOOD ALL COUNTRY,Transfer WU,SHIP LAPTOP( DELL, TOSHIBA,..) IPAD2,IPHONE

I rather enjoyed it when the list passed spam. Every spam received to the list was instant grist for the SARE mill leading to better and tighter rules for killing similar spams. After awhile the amount of spam from actual spammers dropped fairly dramatically as they put spamassassin list filters

Re: What to tell senders of these messages

On 2012/06/09 05:24, haman...@t-online.de wrote: Michael Scheidell wrote: HS_INDEX_PARAM: tell them not to use web bugs in their marketing emails Hi Michael, since we are sending out newsletters (to people who really subscribed :) and I got the role to be my own "email marketing company", I w

Re: Canonicalizing text parts to UTF-8 before applying body rules

On 2012/05/29 13:18, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 5/29/2012 3:58 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: This idea is growing out of a thread I started in which someone pointed me to https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3062 Ignoring the locale under which SA runs and also ignoring the charac

Re: Allowing IMAP users to train spam/ham

On 2012/03/04 11:57, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, jdow wrote: On 2012/03/04 10:30, LuKreme wrote: On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote: > question is if necessary ... Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see anyway to process a message i

Re: Allowing IMAP users to train spam/ham

On 2012/03/04 10:30, LuKreme wrote: On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote: question is if necessary ... Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see anyway to process a message in a maildir and then move that message. How would you do it? bash script with f

Re: Spamassassin Moves Mailbox

On 2011/12/21 14:31, RW wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:20:09 -0500 Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 12/21/2011 9:11 AM, RW wrote: Matthias Andree, a fetchmail maintainer, tried to have it deprecated and removed from the FreeBSD ports tree: Good luck. Did the people who speak fluent .procmailrc tr

Re: Spamassassin Moves Mailbox

On 2011/12/21 04:34, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 12/21/2011 12:39 AM, jdow wrote: On 2011/12/20 18:51, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: My .procmailrc in my home directory has MAILDIR=/home/spool/mail :-) What about /etc/procmailrc? I would post the contents of both. It makes a difference how

Re: Spamassassin Moves Mailbox

On 2011/12/20 18:51, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: My .procmailrc in my home directory has MAILDIR=/home/spool/mail :-) What about /etc/procmailrc? I would post the contents of both. It makes a difference how procmail is called. It is a filter. It takes an input and feeds it to the output. It wo

Re: DNSWL will be disabled by default as of tomorrow

On 2011/12/12 14:35, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:01 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 12/12/2011 12:24 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: Please don't forget that this became an issue only after DNSWL policy change. At the time the DNSWL rules have been enabled by default

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/29 06:37, Simon Loewenthal wrote: On 29/11/11 15:21, Bowie Bailey wrote: On 11/28/2011 11:21 PM, Dave Warren wrote: On 11/28/2011 7:41 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote: http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/ does not work in chrome I tried in C

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 20:28, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote: It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become an excellent w

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 19:21, Jason Haar wrote: Don't have an answer for you, but I can say that the following URL works under FF-8.0 http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/ (resolves to 18.18.18.18) However, if you force browsers through a squid proxy, squid-2.6 at least treats that as borked and won't play with

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 17:49, C. Bensend wrote: I guess I'm confused why you think this is a vulnerability... It's simply another way to represent an IP address that browsers grok. Is it obfuscation? Sure. But hell, for the average internet user, a NON-obfuscated IP address is cryptic enough. ;) Th

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 17:05, C. Bensend wrote: Why bug such people unless their product IS vulnerable? Note that this seems to be an email trying to get people who have a "vulnerable" browser to click a specific link. I'd expect that link to be loaded with a zero day or the likes that the browser exhib

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 14:36, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 11/28, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a If you have multiple emails with this pattern that spamassassin is not catching, please provide them via

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 05:43, RW wrote: On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:43:00 +0100 Thierry Besancon wrote: On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. According to C standards

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/27 15:05, Mahmoud Khonji wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/2011 01:26 AM, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. {^_^} adding to that

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/27 13:52, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:26 -0800, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. What piece of junk software presented an IP in that format

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/27 13:43, Thierry Besancon wrote: On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. According to C standards, a number beginning with a 0 is an base 8

Question for experts....

Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. {^_^}

Re: Has the effect of '__' changed recently?

Even with that, RW, he can't have been running long enough to give that number. He needs a decent sample of failures before his number is better a figure at least ten times the figure he gave. And NO system with that many mails fails to make false positives unless one is arrogant enough to declar

Re: new paradigm

Whereas my concerns for your mathematical nonsense is zip, nada, zero, nothing, goawayyoubothermechild. Seriously, your claim is patent nonsense yet you expect people to listen to you. That IS rather childish behavior, you know. You can't have been running anti-spam tools long enough to reach you

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 16:31, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 13:56 -0700, jdow wrote: On 2011/10/13 05:43, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote: Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable package for SL6.1. Look at your dis

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 14:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 10/13, jdow wrote: 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK [207.69.195.183 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com] None of the blacklists, or software involved, are maintained by perfect

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 08:18, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} If by some mistake we actuall

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 07:26, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/13/2011 1:16 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote: On 13/10/2011 10:07, jdow wrote: On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 07:24, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/13/2011 12:32 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 07:21, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} Excuse me! Earthlink servers ar

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 05:54, RW wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700 jdow wrote: On 2011/10/12 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't wan

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 05:44, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700, jdow wrote: what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ? A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin. hmp, spamassassin still can excempt whitelisted/blacklisted ips, if

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 05:43, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote: Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable package for SL6.1. Look at your distro's repo first: its a Fedora supported package, so I'd expect other distros to

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 03:44, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 21:45 -0700, jdow wrote: A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin. Minor point: fetchmail is known to be buggy, amongst which is a bad habit of leaving previously read mail in the source mailbox

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 01:17, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 13.10.2011 10:07, schrieb jdow: On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want A

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} earthlink.net net is a spam s

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/12 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} what are stopping you

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/12 16:35, Noel Butler wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 12:49 -0700, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} What makes them idiot

Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+}

Re: Spam email many have RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED

On 2011/10/11 12:30, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:27:04 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: And I have my own IP reputation project that could use your data: http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/ shame on microsoft not letting me have ie9, shame on you not let me see your page as

Re: "Your mailbox has exceeded..."

On 2011/09/30 10:04, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Ned Slider wrote: On 30/09/11 01:41, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: Sure a lot of "Your mailbox has exceeded" spam these days. I'll use body J_MAILBOX_FULL /^Your mailbox has exceeded/ score J_MAILBOX_FULL ... myself for now. I've se

Re: Increasing score based on membership to commercial whitelist

Something more interesting would be to give then nominal scores, say 0.01. Then you can use hit statistics to determine whether or not you should use the whitelist and how good or bad it might be. (I suspect results might be surprising.) {^_^} On 2011/09/25 10:46, Roger Marquis wrote: RW wrote:

Re: linkedin messages

Best put that in your own personal user_prefs. Some people want them. {^_^} On 2011/08/13 13:57, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: And even if you are a card carrying member of LinkedIn, header J_CANT_STOP Subject =~ /^LinkedIn Network Updates/ score J_CANT_STOP 222 is needed, as even LinkedIn staff a

For any URIBL sort here

Out of addlepated curiosity why is scientificlinux.org listed? {^_^}

Re: KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB

On 2011/08/11 18:39, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:40 -0700, jdow wrote: >>> KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB is misfiring with great consistency on the LKML. >>> This is not good. It's a known issue. There is at least one ISP and LKML rewriting *MUA* gene

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >