On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
I have been experiencing a huge amount of spam getting through to some big
target addresses, mainly from .eu and .info addresses, and would like to see
if someone can find something wrong with my setup. I recently upgraded to
3.4, but still the
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
I have been experiencing a huge amount of spam getting through to
some big target addresses, mainly from .eu and .info addresses, and
would like to see if someone can find something wrong with my setup.
I recently upgraded to
On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Robert Fitzpatrick rob...@webtent.org wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
I have been experiencing a huge amount of spam getting through to some big
target addresses, mainly from .eu and .info addresses, and would like to
Hi Steven,
It is realy worth, to filter this with spamassassin?
I get per day over 4 of them... and filter it easyly from procmail
since the messages are always generated by the same software.
:0B
* contains a virus which has
.ATTENTION.Anti_Virus_Spam/
Thanks, Greetings and
- Original Message -
From: mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Lots of spam with the following snip
Justin Mason wrote:
[snip]
On 01.07.08 10:50, Justin Mason wrote:
no -- this is real spam, not a bounce
On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
pGod dag,strong /strong/pspan /span
a name=#qppp
/abrbr***br
Warning!br
This letter contains a virus which has beenbr
successfully detected and cured.
br***br
The part that's noteworthy is this:
br***br
Warning!br
This letter contains a
Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
pGod dag,strong /strong/pspan /span
a name=#qppp
/abrbr***br
Warning!br
This letter contains a virus which has beenbr
successfully detected and cured.
br***br
The part that's noteworthy is this:
On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
pGod dag,strong /strong/pspan /span
a name=#qppp
/abrbr***br
Warning!br
This letter contains a virus which has beenbr
successfully detected and cured.
br***br
The part that's noteworthy is this:
br***br
Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
pGod dag,strong /strong/pspan /span
a name=#qppp
/abrbr***br
Warning!br
This letter contains a virus which has beenbr
successfully detected and cured.
br***br
The part that's
Justin Mason wrote:
[snip]
On 01.07.08 10:50, Justin Mason wrote:
no -- this is real spam, not a bounce in any way.
same here. not a bounce in any way.
Are you sure it's not just virus message sent by someone and cured by
intermediate relay?
Yes, seeing lots of this
On Monday 30 June 2008 6:04 pm, Steven W. Orr wrote:
pGod dag,strong /strong/pspan /span
a name=#qppp
/abrbr***br
Warning!br
This letter contains a virus which has beenbr
successfully detected and cured.
br***br
The part that's noteworthy is this:
br***br
Warning!br
This letter
On Monday 30 June 2008 6:04 pm, Steven W. Orr wrote:
pGod dag,strong /strong/pspan /span
a name=#qppp
/abrbr***br
Warning!br
This letter contains a virus which has beenbr
successfully detected and cured.
br***br
The part that's noteworthy is this:
br***br
Warning!br
This letter
Hi, tarak
2008/2/26, Tarak Ranjan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi List,
i have posted my RAW email in http://pastebin.ca/918849 ,
i'm receiving 1000 to 4000 per day this king of mesages.
SA also skipping this kind of mails
/
Well, I get a beautiful BAYES_99 on the mail you've shown. You
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 10:28 -0200, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Hi, tarak
2008/2/26, Tarak Ranjan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi List,
i have posted my RAW email in http://pastebin.ca/918849 ,
i'm receiving 1000 to 4000 per day this king of mesages.
SA also skipping this kind of mails
Tarak Ranjan wrote:
Hi List,
i have posted my RAW email in http://pastebin.ca/918849 ,
i'm receiving 1000 to 4000 per day this king of mesages.
SA also skipping this kind of mails
/
TArak
I get 8.2 without Bayes...
1.5 IXHASH2BODY: mail has been classified
Hi,
I score it as follows :-
Content analysis details: (23.1 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
Hi List,
i have posted my RAW email in http://pastebin.ca/918849 ,
i'm receiving 1000 to 4000 per day this king of mesages.
SA also skipping this kind of mails
Nice girl spam. Look in the archives over the last week, those were
discussed a lot and several rules posted for them.
I use these rules. Score as you see fit. Mind the linebreaks...
body HC_GIRL/\bnice girl that would like to chat.{1,16}Email
me at \
.{1,32}\.info.{1,120}\bpic(ture)?s\b/
describe HC_GIRLGirl with pics scam
scoreHC_GIRL5
body HC_GIRL2 /I am
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 6:15 am, Tarak Ranjan wrote:
Hi List,
i have posted my RAW email in http://pastebin.ca/918849 ,
i'm receiving 1000 to 4000 per day this king of mesages.
SA also skipping this kind of mails
/
TArak
Here's how my box scored it:
Content analysis details:
I have searched around rulesemporium without much success trying to find
these LOCAL_OBFU_* rules. I don't suppose you could tell me the
filename that they occur in could you? (I assume they will be in
/etc/mail/Spamassassin or wherever your local.cf file is for your
install).
Sorry, for
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 8:15:12 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
Figured out why URIBL_SBL wasn't firing for me for that email - I can't
even resolve that domain! Have tried resolving it on several machines I
have shell access to (including external machines who peer with
different
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 4:57:57 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 8:15:12 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
Figured out why URIBL_SBL wasn't firing for me for that email - I can't
even resolve that domain! Have tried resolving it on several machines I
have shell access to
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 January 2005 01:07
To: Jeff Chan
Cc: Darren Coleman; Jack L. Stone; Loren Wilton;
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
rules
On Wednesday
On Thursday, January 13, 2005, 1:19:58 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
% dig 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a
; DiG 8.3 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id:
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SUBJ Obfuscated 'TADALAFIL' in subject
0.3 SARE_WEOFFER
Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SUBJ Obfuscated 'TADALAFIL' in subject
file is for your
install).
Thanks,
Darren
-Original Message-
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 January 2005 12:37
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
rules
Well, just for grins I ran it here
At 04:36 AM 1.12.2005 -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SUBJ
Wilton; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
rules
At 04:36 AM 1.12.2005 -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name
-Original Message-
From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 January 2005 15:29
To: Jack L. Stone; Loren Wilton; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
rules
Hmm..
I got the following on that message
PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Jack L. Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of RulesEmp
rules
At 04:36 AM 1.12.2005 -0800
Christopher John Shaker wrote:
In my useage, SpamAssassin 3.0.2 works *way* better than the 2.XX
versions of
SpamAssassin. I've been training my Baysian filters, and they work
really well now.
SA 3.0.2 works so well that I've deleted most of my apx 400 local rules,
which plugged
leaks through
Darren Coleman wrote:
Hi Loren,
Firstly, thanks for your help.
I have searched around rulesemporium without much success trying to find
these LOCAL_OBFU_* rules. I don't suppose you could tell me the
filename that they occur in could you? (I assume they will be in
/etc/mail/Spamassassin or
33 matches
Mail list logo
