On 02/25/2018 08:20 PM, Philip wrote:
How do you load custom rules... is it as simple as dropping the .cf file
in the spamassassin directory and restart?
I'm looking at these: https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets
Phil
Yep. Usually /etc/mail/spamassassin and restart whatever
How do you load custom rules... is it as simple as dropping the .cf file
in the spamassassin directory and restart?
I'm looking at these: https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets
Phil
On 10/15/2015 11:01 AM, emailitis.com wrote:
I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam.
Rules are:
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, emailitis.com wrote:
I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam.
Rules are:
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5
...etc.
Did you miss the earlier replies to this question? Read the list archives
for
I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam.
Rules are:
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5
and extract from maillog is:
I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam.
Rules are:
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5
and extract from maillog is:
On 12 Oct 2015, at 14:01, Bill Cole wrote:
Your "All" rule will only match a header named "All" which is unlikely
to exist.
Clarifying: it would match a header named with any capitalization
pattern of "All" because individual header names are matched
case-insensitively, but it won't match
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, emailitis.com wrote:
I have created 2 rules because almost everything from zcsend is Spam.
Rules are:
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_1 All =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_1 2.5
# zcsend Spam
header CGK_ZCSEND_2 From =~ /\@zcsend\.net/
score CGK_ZCSEND_2 2.5
You're
On 12 Oct 2015, at 12:41, emailitis.com wrote:
Can a regex expert help me identify why that did not trigger one of
the
CGK_ZCSEND_x rules?
Not without seeing the headers of the message in question *as they are
seen by SA*. However, I can offer a few generic tips:
Header rules match
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Bill Cole wrote:
Your "All" rule will only match a header named "All" which is unlikely to
exist. If you want it to match against all headers, you MUST use 'ALL' rather
than 'All' or 'all' or any other capitalization pattern.
Ugh, I missed that nuance...
--
John Hardin
On 26.05.15 11:34, Forrest wrote:
Subject: Re: user_prefs custom rules, not matching
On 5/21/15 1:41 PM, Axb wrote:
does this work?
headerLIST_ID_MARKET_EEKList-ID =~ /emarketeerz/
I've tried this, and it doesn't appear to be working. I just
received another message today, here
On 26 May 2015, at 11:34, Forrest wrote:
On 5/21/15 1:41 PM, Axb wrote:
does this work?
headerLIST_ID_MARKET_EEKList-ID =~ /emarketeerz/
I've tried this, and it doesn't appear to be working. I just received
another message today, here are the headers (sanitized).
It seems quite
Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in mailto: ?
Reject list-id in mta stage, and this template have no unsubscribe links,
what a catcher
does this work?
header LIST_ID_MARKET_EEK List-ID =~ /emarketeerz/
On 21.05.2015 19:31, Forrest wrote:
I'm having a problem with a spammer who is using Google Groups as a
base. They manage to re-subscribe people, etc., and it's hosted on a
private domain, so I can't get to the panel to
On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM Bill Cole
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in
mailto: ?
Sure, why not? See RFC's 821, 822, 2821, 2822, 5321, and 5322 :)
There is
On 5/21/15 5:36 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM Bill Cole
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in
mailto: ?
Sure, why not? See RFC's 821,
On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in
mailto: ?
Sure, why not? See RFC's 821, 822, 2821, 2822, 5321, and 5322 :)
There is nothing special about '+' in an email address in SMTP or in the
email data format. It is
On 21 May 2015, at 17:36, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM Bill Cole
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid
in
mailto: ?
Sure, why not? See RFC's
On 2015-05-21 16:47, Forrest wrote:
On 5/21/15 5:36 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On May 21, 2015 11:08:28 PM Bill Cole
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 21 May 2015, at 14:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Note that plus addressing, users can only subscribe, is 2 + valid in
mailto: ?
I'm having a problem with a spammer who is using Google Groups as a
base. They manage to re-subscribe people, etc., and it's hosted on a
private domain, so I can't get to the panel to report the domain.
In any case, I wrote a couple of simple rules in user_prefs that
/should/ match, but they
2013 15:50
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: custom rules header check please
On 11/7/2013 10:40 AM, emailitis.com wrote:
I am getting lots of Spam which shows on the maillog as:
Nov 7 10:50:39 plesk3 qmail-scanner-queue.pl: qmail-scanner[6974]:
Clear:RC:0(217.92.121.114):SA:1
On 11/8/2013 6:59 AM, emailitis.com wrote:
Thank you and Benny for your help.
I put those in place and all looks well. We had one captured this
morning but wondered if you can explain in the log below which seems
as if it has been deleted, yet then allowed:
Nov 8 10:05:04 plesk3
+98453-927...@dcbltd.exvm.com to: u...@domain.com origin_ip:
193.133.125.41 origin_rdns: mta18.evmailer.com auth: (unknown) encryption:
(none) reason:
250_ok_1383819336_qp_26270
I want to write some custom rules that can capture part of this (because on
the actual emails, the sender often purports
spamdyke[26254]: ALLOWED from:
administrator+98453-927...@dcbltd.exvm.com to: u...@domain.com
origin_ip: 193.133.125.41 origin_rdns: mta18.evmailer.com auth:
(unknown) encryption: (none) reason:
250_ok_1383819336_qp_26270
I want to write some custom rules that can capture part
emailitis.com skrev den 2013-11-07 16:40:
header AEXP_ALL ALL =~ /aexp.com/i
header EXVM_ALL ALL =~ /exvm.com/i
why not blacklist_from ?
blacklist_from *@aexp.com
blacklist_from *@exvm.com
olso remember . needs excapeing \. in header
but not as blacklist_from :)
does your real name
Original Message
Subject: Unable to verify custom rules being loaded from 'local.cf'
From: Sharma, Ashish ashish.shar...@hp.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
CC:
Hi,
I have a amavisd-new setup with spamassassin(3.3.1) on RHEL 5.8 , at the
following location:
/etc/mail
How can I test whether the custom rule sets in 'local(munged to avoid
URIBLs).cf' are being loaded by spamassassin on my production setup?
Put your rules in another file, let's say ASHISH.cf.
Run spamassassin -D --lint 21 | grep ASHISH
Look for something like:
Jul 17 09:22:26.419 [12158]
On 07/17/2013 03:39 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
IMPORTANT NOTE: First email to the list was blocked because
local(munged).cf is blacklisted. Any of the Blacklist experts have any
thoughts on that issue? Is it a legit URL in spams?
HE!
local[[.]]cf listed on black.uribl.com
On 13/10/2011 1:45 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 23:32 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Starting today, I've noticed that 3 of my rules fire in situations where
they should not. They are simple meta rules that count how many rule,
against certain URIBL rules, fire. They
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 03:57 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 13/10/2011 1:45 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
In a related note, as per the M::SA::Conf docs for meta rules -- The
value of a hit meta test is that of its arithmetic expression. The value
of a hit eval test is that returned by
Hi,
I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (cPanel) with latest rule updates.
Starting today, I've noticed that 3 of my rules fire in situations where
they should not. They are simple meta rules that count how many rule,
against certain URIBL rules, fire. They then raise the spam score.
They are as
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 23:32 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Starting today, I've noticed that 3 of my rules fire in situations where
they should not. They are simple meta rules that count how many rule,
against certain URIBL rules, fire. They then raise the spam score.
meta LW_URIBL_LO
header L_AV_Unofficial X-Amavis-AV-Status =~
m{\bAV:Sanesecurity.TestSig_Type4_Hdr.2.UNOFFICIAL\b}
Which seems to be scoring 4 just fine:
X-Spam-Status: ... tests=[.. L_AV_Unofficial=4
Indeed.
The weird part is this:
X-Spam-Status: ...
I am working on adding some rules to SA so that SA adds more points when
detecting a signature. Here is a pastebin of the headers and the rules:
http://pastebin.com/qnwbSq5d
It should be adding 4 points as per my rule, but as it is it is only
adding 0.1 points.
--
Munroe Sollog
Digirati
points.
It looks like you're talking about one specific rule, and then gave us an
example with a pile of custom rules without telling us which one you were
talking about. Which is annoying.
But I think it's this one:
header L_AV_Unofficial X-Amavis-AV-Status =~
m
On 2010-11-16 23:52, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:20 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote:
2. Email body contains less than 4 characters
I've never seen mail with so short a body - where's
Hello,
Just wanted to create (or use if they already exist) some rules:
1. Email body contains more than 10 newliners without any text between them
2. Email body contains less than 4 characters
3. Email body contains only a line of text and a line with some URL
Any help appreciated.
Regards,
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote:
Hello,
I've seen all but (2) in ham, so be careful with these rules - you
probably want to score them at 0.01 and use them in meta-rules.
Just wanted to create (or use if they already exist) some rules:
1. Email body contains more than 10
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote:
2. Email body contains less than 4 characters
I've never seen mail with so short a body - where's the spam payload?
Likely the Subject line.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:20 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:02 +, Mike Bro wrote:
2. Email body contains less than 4 characters
I've never seen mail with so short a body - where's the spam payload?
Likely the
Hi list,
when creating acustom rule, what characters have to be escaped?
For example this scustom rule
http://www.novell.com/communities/node/4630/whitelisting-ip-address-spamassassin
escapes both [ and ] while in common regex on only [ must be escaped
/Custom-rules---escape-characters-tp28482942p28483025.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
C.M. Burns wrote:
Hi list,
when creating acustom rule, what characters have to be escaped?
For example this scustom rule
http://www.novell.com/communities/node/4630/whitelisting-ip-address-spamassassin
escapes both [ and ] while in common regex on only [ must be escaped
this:
http://old.nabble.com/custom-rules---escape-which-characters--tt28469892.html
Daniel
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Custom-rules---escape-characters-tp28482942p28483295.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Daniel Lemke wrote:
Am I seeing ghosts or is this the third time you asked the same question on
this list? Your first mail was already replied so I suggest you have a look
there to get your answers.
Daniel
Oh, good, it's not my mail server acting up again! (smile)
To OP:
Hi,
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 08:48:35AM +0200, C.M. Burns wrote:
when creating a custom rule, what characters have to be escaped?
every character with special meaning in perl regular expressions
and in the place it's used.
In example it's a big difference if ] is used in a
character class
Hi list,
when creating acustom rule, what characters have to be escaped?
For example this scustom rule
http://www.novell.com/communities/node/4630/whitelisting-ip-address-spamassassin
escapes both [ and ] while in common regex on only [ must be escaped
Hello list,
I have a slight problem using custom rules with latest SA release.
I am using a mysql DB to store the per user and per domain configs as
described in the SA howto.
Now I wanted to write a custom rule which should also be stored in the
mysql DB.
This does not seem to work, although
Hey folks,
I'm playing around with writing some rules, something I've
never done before. I'm not looking to do anything fancy, I just
wanted to learn how to do it.
So, I picked one of my spams at total random, and wanted to
match on e-shop.gr in any of the headers. The rule, I believe,
I received answers to my questions off-list, so I'll reply to myself
and share them with the rest of everyone. :)
describe CJB_ESHOP_GR Contains reference to e-shop.gr
header CJB_ESHOP_GR ALL =~ /e-shop\.gr/i
score CJB_ESHOP_GR 0.01
The efficiency and wisdom of matching against any
The problem was multiline rules with rawbody. Changing it
to full and things work. (I missed that little detail in
the wiki, and there are body rules in the dist that have /is)
Request
A rule in-between rawbody/full? I.e. the whole body, but not the
headers? Or even better, in addition to
Because your first option matches the style inside the brackets
and
your second option does take into account the forward slash
before style?
Todd
Michael Dilworth wrote:
OK, it's late and I'm tired, and this will probably
end up being stupid regex issue, but:
why does...
rawbody
Michael Dilworth wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:45:20 -0800:
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\body\.*\style\/si not match?
because the HTML doesn't contain style? Maybe you wanted:
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\body\.*\style.*\/si
Also, you don't have to escape the angle brackets, just makes the
expression
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Michael Dilworth wrote:
style
garbage...
/style
If you're looking for nonsense STYLE content, take a look in my sandbox.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key:
OK, it's late and I'm tired, and this will probably
end up being stupid regex issue, but:
why does...
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\body\.*style/si match
and:
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\body\.*\style\/si not match?
given a message body:
htmlhead
...
/headbody
...
style
garbage...
/style
...
/body
Hi All
Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same email
address ?
We want to black list email from sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to
one off our staff.
( we have requested removal from there list many times, to no effect )
So we have the following custom
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
So we have the following custom rule
describe _GMF_CNET01 blacklist
sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to caro...@netnorth.co.uk
header __GMF_CNET01_FROM From =~
/silic...@newsletters\.silicon\.cneteu\.net/i
header
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:17 +, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same email
address ?
Nope. Custom rules are unaffected.
Running, spamassassin -D --lint, shows no errors / warnings
Running it through spamassassin -D, do you
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:06 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
meta _GMF_CNET01 ( __GMF_CNET01_FROM __GMF_CNET01_TO )
score _GMF_CNET01 200
The problem is the way you named the rule.
From the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page:
Note that
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:06 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
meta _GMF_CNET01 ( __GMF_CNET01_FROM __GMF_CNET01_TO
) score _GMF_CNET01 200
The problem is the way you named the rule.
From the
On Wed, February 4, 2009 16:17, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the
same email address ?
We want to black list email from
sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to
in local.cf or user_prefs
unwhitelist_from sili
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
So we have the following custom rule
describe _GMF_CNET01 blacklist
sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to caro...@netnorth.co.uk
header __GMF_CNET01_FROM From =~
/silic...@newsletters\.silicon\.cneteu\.net/i
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:34 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The meta rule has a single underscore prefix, probably to denote local
rules. Though there are better prefixes for that, IMHO. ;)
Anyway, a single underscore isn't a meta-match sub-rule and works as
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
We want to black list email from sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net
to one off our staff. ( we have requested removal from there list many
times, to no effect )
Perhaps an MTA hard-fail rule would be better for this purpose.
--
John
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same
email address ?
Quick point – if you have short-circuiting turned on, then they may well
be…
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | Which do you consider was the stronger swimmer,
aprilcottage.co.uk
Hi All
All working now :)
Many thanks for the responses.
Regards
Gary
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
Hi All
Question, are custom rules ignored if a white list entry has the same
email address ?
We want to black list email from
sili...@newsletters.silicon.cneteu.net to one off our staff
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 22:31 +, Gary Forrest wrote:
All working now :)
Many thanks for the responses.
Oh, come on, Gary -- you could at least tell us what the issue was, and
maybe how you found out and fixed it. After all, the rule does indeed
look ok. ;)
--
char
Hello.
I'm writing my custom rule
uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\//
score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0
(for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com into body)
I've add it to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf but I can't see it with
spamassassin --lint -D (and
does spamassassin --lint give you any errors?
Joe
Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hello.
I'm writing my custom rule
uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\//
score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0
(for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com
http://www.viapaypal.com/ into
Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hello.
I'm writing my custom rule
uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\//
score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0
(for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com
http://www.viapaypal.com/ into body)
I've add it to
No, it gives me nothing.
:~# spamassassin --lint
:~#
2008/12/1 Joe Vieira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
does spamassassin --lint give you any errors?
Joe
Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hello.
I'm writing my custom rule
uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\//
score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL
Hi Jonathan,
nice to hear this.
I'm using amavisd-new also.
My local.cf is owned by root, but readable from world
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1304 Dec 1 19:00 local.cf
Do you think this is the problem?
2008/12/1 Jonathan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hello.
I'm writing
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:37:36PM +0100, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
uri LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL /www\.viapaypal\.com\//
score LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL 5.0
(for add five points to e-mail contains www.viapaypal.com
http://www.viapaypal.com/ into body)
I've add it to
It works!
I sent a mail with www.viapaypal.com in the body:
*X-Spam-Flag:* YES
*X-Spam-Score:* 13.178
*X-Spam-Level:* *
*X-Spam-Status:* Yes, score=13.178 tagged_above=undef required=6.31
tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
LOCAL_URI_VIAPAYPAL=5,
Andrew Wilkinson wrote:
I'm experimenting with Fedora 8 and a miltered sendmail configuration
running as a mail gateway (smf-sav, smf-spf, milter-greylist,
clamav-milter, spamass-milter). I've configured spamassassin's local.cf
with a custom rule. It's a simple regex which checks the
I'm experimenting with Fedora 8 and a miltered sendmail configuration
running as a mail gateway (smf-sav, smf-spf, milter-greylist,
clamav-milter, spamass-milter). I've configured spamassassin's local.cf
with a custom rule. It's a simple regex which checks the 'Received'
header on inbound
Andrew Wilkinson wrote:
I'm experimenting with Fedora 8 and a miltered sendmail configuration
running as a mail gateway (smf-sav, smf-spf, milter-greylist,
clamav-milter, spamass-milter). I've configured spamassassin's
local.cf with a custom rule. It's a simple regex which checks the
This is a good place to start, especially if you want to understand Meta
rule writing:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules
The rest is up to your knowledge of Perl regular expressions and
applying them to match spam. Beware downloading 3rd party custom rules,
as what works
Where is a good starting place to find information about how to write
GOOD rules?
Best Regards,
Jason Holbrook
Chief Technology Integrator / Partner
Empower Information Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
weblog.empoweris.com http://weblog.empoweris.com/
www.empoweris.com
Skype: holbrook.jason
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
-Original Message-
From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 October 2007 11:54
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates
I should also mention that SA 3.1.3 was working flawlessly
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates
I should also mention that SA 3.1.3 was working flawlessly
until the update
to 3.2.3. I've used the newer config files and been through
most of the
options, but still no luck.
Rob Starr wrote
@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates
Thanks for your response Phil,
In an attempt to resolve the issue, I'm now using MailScanner
4.64.3 and
have started from a fresh config file, so my Spamassassin
Local State Dir
line also reads:
SpamAssassin Local State
Hereford, UK
-Original Message-
From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 October 2007 12:29
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates
Thanks for your response Phil,
In an attempt to resolve the issue, I'm now using
it is using?
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
-Original Message-
From: Rob Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 October 2007 12:29
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates
Thanks for your
: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates
Hi,
I don't know if this is relevant for you or not, but on our mail
server I could not get sa-update to work, either. I noticed that if
the directory was not there, however, it would work. So a down and
dirty approach I took was writing a crop job
PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 October 2007 13:30
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Custom rules working, but not sa-updates
Boy, that's a handy command. I'll have to write that one down.
I'm getting:
In Debugging mode, not forking...
SpamAssassin temp dir =
/var/spool/MailScanner
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 08:35 -0500, Andy Norris wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is relevant for you or not, but on our mail
server I could not get sa-update to work, either. I noticed that if
the directory was not there, however, it would work.
Sounds like a permissions issue.
So a
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 08:35 -0500, Andy Norris wrote:
So a down and
dirty approach I took was writing a crop job that removes that
directory just before running sa-update.
So, you delete it every time, even when there are no updates? And since
updates occur about
No, it was not a permissions issue. I'll get back to working on it
soon, but, yes there were newer versions than what I was seeing on my
server. There are so many posts about sa-update not working. I'm sure
sa-update works, for some folks, but it wasn't for me, and I had to
quit spending
Andy Norris wrote:
No, it was not a permissions issue. I'll get back to working on it soon,
but, yes there were newer versions than what I was seeing on my server.
There are so many posts about sa-update not working. I'm sure sa-update
works, for some folks, but it wasn't for me, and I had
I appreciate that you would like to see it working right, Daryl. To
that, I'd add, me, too. But, like I said, I had to move on, and I
hope to get back to it soon. And, by the way, I played with setting
the update paths to all kinds of places, and all kinds of
permissions, too. ;-) I'm sure
-
From: MaraBlue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 August 2007 01:09
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: v3.2.3 isn't recognizing local.cf custom rules
Robert - elists-2 wrote:
I have *always* run SA through MailScanner. This configuration is not
new,
I
have run
On 8/18/2007 12:43 PM, MaraBlue wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
MaraBlue wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:02:16 -0700 (PDT):
there several versions back.
I've run --lint -D, and SA is reading local.cf (I can post the log if
needed). The only other thing I changed a few days before this started
was
On 8/18/2007 6:19 PM, Robert - elists wrote:
I have *always* run SA through MailScanner. This configuration is not new,
I
have run it this way for *years*. The only thing that's new is the version
of SA. As soon as I upgraded to v3.2.3, the problems started.
If you can't be helpful, I can
What's with this? There's no need for this on this list.
Maybe not... pray for victory over the moron stick for me please.
You've asked many a question here that the above would have applied to
No kiddin? :-)
Im sure I would agree...
I imagine the ESR smart questions faq would
I've used custom rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf since v3.1.7 with
never a problem. Since upgrading to v3.2.3, it's as if SpamAssassin isn't
seeing/registering the same rules that have always worked.
I'm running SpamAssassin on CentOS 4.5, with cPanel and through a
MailScanner package
Please provide the complete output of spamassassin --lint -D
On 8/18/2007 3:02 AM, MaraBlue wrote:
I've used custom rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf since v3.1.7 with
never a problem. Since upgrading to v3.2.3, it's as if SpamAssassin isn't
seeing/registering the same rules that have
.
Nothing has changed to the local.cf, the only change is the SA version.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/v3.2.3-isn%27t-recognizing-local.cf-custom-rules-tf4289420.html#a12214992
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Please provide the complete output of spamassassin --lint -D
Happy to:
Log from 72.9.251.53 started August 17, 2007, 23:22:08
spamassassin --lint -D
[24276] dbg: logger: adding facilities: all
[24276] dbg: logger: logging level is DBG
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
