Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

d my > > iRedMail/amavis server. This method has shown to keep my Bayes scores > > very accurate. > > > > Hope someone finds this information helpful. > > > > Dave > > > > > > On 01/20/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > >> O

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

ion helpful. > > Dave > > > On 01/20/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: >> On 20-01-17 19:46, David Jones wrote: >>>> From: Kevin Golding >>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:59 AM >>>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >>>> Subje

Re: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

ubject: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17 On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill Keenan wrote: What is the fix needed so /usr/bin/sa-update starts getting updates? I too have not received an update from updates.spamassassin.org <http://updates.spamassassin.org/> since 1-

Re: Rule updates?

On 11/6/2017 11:29 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote: I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going to resume starting about a week ago.  I haven't heard anything since and still have not seen any updates.  What is the current status? Its a work in progress

Re: Rule updates?

> I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going > to resume starting about a week ago.  I haven't heard anything since and > still have not seen any updates.  What is the current status? Its a work in progress, there was some feedback and some changes

Rule updates?

I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going to resume starting about a week ago.  I haven't heard anything since and still have not seen any updates.  What is the current status? -- Bowie

Re: Rule updates working again

On 06/08/2017 05:46 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: it worked exactly one time Am 06.06.2017 um 17:29 schrieb David Jones: FYI We have the rule build scripts working for updates via sa-update. Default rule scores are also updating thanks to our masscheckers out there.

Rule updates working again

FYI We have the rule build scripts working for updates via sa-update. Default rule scores are also updating thanks to our masscheckers out there. https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck -- Dave

Re: Any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again?

On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 21:52 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 5/2/2017 8:52 PM, Chris wrote: > > > > Since it's now been a month and a half is there any ETA as to when > > rule > > updates will begin again? I've been showing the same channel > > ve

Re: Any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again?

On 5/2/2017 8:52 PM, Chris wrote: Since it's now been a month and a half is there any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again? I've been showing the same channel version since 16 March as shown in the attached. As a volunteer project, there is no ETA. I can tell you my goal is to get

Any ETA as to when rule updates will begin again?

Back on the 15th of March this was posted to the list: "I posted this to the dev and ruleqa mailing lists, then realized that it is also relevant to people on this list who run rule updates. We are in the process of migrating off old machines to a new one for the masschecks and rule u

Mass check and rule updates - Down for machine migration

I posted this to the dev and ruleqa mailing lists, then realized that it is also relevant to people on this list who run rule updates. We are in the process of migrating off old machines to a new one for the masschecks and rule update processing. Unfortunately the required shutdown of the old

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>> I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most.  I would >> have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) I set this up and it was much easier than I had thought.  The wiki documentation was helpful but very confusing at first.  Start with:

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Kevin Golding wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:08:39 -, Jari Fredriksson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: > Collecting spam after RBL filtering is much less helpful to masscheck. > Ideally your

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Kevin Golding wrote: On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 -, David Jones wrote: I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most. I would have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) then create a honeypot email address to

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kevin Golding kirjoitti 21.1.2017 21:22: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:08:39 -, Jari Fredriksson wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: >> >>> Collecting spam after

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:08:39 -, Jari Fredriksson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: Collecting spam after RBL filtering is much less helpful to masscheck. Ideally your spam corpus is from a totally unfiltered feed.

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hardin kirjoitti 20.1.2017 22:38: > Collecting spam after RBL filtering is much less helpful to masscheck. > Ideally your spam corpus is from a totally unfiltered feed. > > However, even if it is filtered and small, it helps, *especially* if >

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 + >David Jones wrote: >> I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most.  I would >> have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) >I hope it doesn't actually say that anywhere. IMO the corpora should be >dominated by the spam

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 + David Jones wrote: > I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most. I would > have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) I hope it doesn't actually say that anywhere. IMO the corpora should be dominated by the spam that's

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:35:12 -, David Jones wrote: I think the "barrier to entry" is too difficult for most. I would have to setup a new MX on a domain without MTA checks (DNS and RBL) then create a honeypot email address to attract spam if I didn't have established

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 01/21/2017 05:35 PM, David Jones wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:02:09 -, Tom Hendrikx wrote: As John has said, diversity makes the rules more accurate for more people. Also many hands make light work. With more people involved there's not such a requirement to

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:02:09 -, Tom Hendrikx wrote: >As John has said, diversity makes the rules more accurate for more people. >Also many hands make light work. With more people involved there's not >such a requirement to contribute thousands of messages per person. I

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:02:09 -, Tom Hendrikx wrote: I think I can say the same about my platform, but since this issue keeps popping up I just applied for an account just to find out if my contribution could help. I can't speculate so I'm just gonna try if it helps :)

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Bill Keenan wrote: I am interested/willing to be part of mass check. However, I use spam assassin via amavisd-new. On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, David Jones wrote: I would like to help with the nightly masscheck but I don't have the resources to manually check ham and spam.

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 20-01-17 19:46, David Jones wrote: >> From: Kevin Golding <k...@caomhin.org> >> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:59 AM >> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17 > >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill K

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

>From: Kevin Golding <k...@caomhin.org> >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:59 AM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17   >On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill Keenan  ><developerli...@wjkeenan.org> wrote: >> W

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

Kevin, I am interested/willing to be part of mass check. However, I use spam assassin via amavisd-new. The wiki references http://www.spamtips.org/p/install-procedure.html , which is not my form of installation. BillK > On Jan 20, 2017, at

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:26:01 -, Bill Keenan wrote: What is the fix needed so /usr/bin/sa-update starts getting updates? I too have not received an update from updates.spamassassin.org since 1-Jan-17. Besides

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

What is the fix needed so /usr/bin/sa-update starts getting updates? I too have not received an update from updates.spamassassin.org since 1-Jan-17. Besides updates.spamassassin.org , what other rule sets are commonly used?

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017, at 12:51, Axb wrote: > On 01/17/2017 09:14 PM, Dave Warren wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017, at 20:02, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >> On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: > >>> The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output > >>> seems to show no problems

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 01/17/2017 09:14 PM, Dave Warren wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2017, at 20:02, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two weeks but I guess

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017, at 20:02, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: > > The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output > > seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two > > weeks but I guess it's possible. > > It's been

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On Sun, 2017-01-15 at 23:02 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: > > > > The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron > > output > > seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for > > two > > weeks but I guess it's possible. >

Re: No rule updates since 1/1/17

On 1/15/2017 9:21 PM, Chris wrote: The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two weeks but I guess it's possible. It's been noted and I think i have the root issue tracked down. Some of the

No rule updates since 1/1/17

The last update of rules I've seen is 1/1/17. The attached cron output seems to show no problems though. Doesn't seem right no updates for two weeks but I guess it's possible. -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C 31.11972; -97.90167 (Elev. 1092 ft) 20:15:36 up 4:59, 1 user, load average: 0.43,

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not everything I could. That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam. In particular it may lead to botnet related tests being seriously

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On 3.6.2016 19.21, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300 >> Jari Fredriksson wrote: >>> >>> If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it >>> for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not >>> everything

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300 Jari Fredriksson wrote: If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not everything I could. That's probably not a good idea if it leads to

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300 Jari Fredriksson wrote: > > If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it > for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not > everything I could. That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam. In

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

3. kesäkuuta 2016 16.46.59 GMT+03:00 "Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge" kirjoitti: >On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote: > >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: >> >>> 20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: >>>

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160602 20160602: Spam: 589792, Ham: 138721 We've been hovering *just* below the ham threshold for a

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-06-03

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160602 20160602: Spam: 589792, Ham: 138721 We've been hovering *just* below the ham threshold for a week or so now. Anyone who can contribute

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-02-29

Am 29.02.2016 um 17:57 schrieb John Hardin: On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160228: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160228 20160228: Spam: 108401, Ham: 191807 Masscheck is spam-starved again, rules updates will be

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-02-29

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160228: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160228 20160228: Spam: 108401, Ham: 191807 Masscheck is spam-starved again, rules updates will be spotty or nonexistent this week. -- John

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-23

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160122: Spam: 156567, Ham: 200399 Looks like we may get an update... -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-21

On 01/21/2016 05:42 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160120: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160120 20160120: Spam: 131777, Ham: 142710 Oooo, so close! My spam levels are extremely low so I've

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-21

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160120: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160120 20160120: Spam: 131777, Ham: 142710 Oooo, so close! -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/

Re: Rule updates are too old - 2016-01-20

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20160119: Spam: 123699, Ham: 199560 ...almost there... -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507

SARE RULEGEN, Re: Rule updates....

Ran these against my corpus. Here are the worst performers (lots in common with RW's complaints): *SPAM% HAM%S/O NAME* 0.013 0.153 0.080 __RULEGEN_PHISH_BLR6YY 0.006 0.286 0.022 __RULEGEN_PHISH_0ATBRI 0.008 0.334 0.023 __RULEGEN_PHISH_L3I0Z5 0.002 0.300 0.006

Re: SARE RULEGEN, Re: Rule updates....

On 01/09/2015 01:23 AM, Adam Katz wrote: Ran these against my corpus. Here are the worst performers (lots in common with RW's complaints): *SPAM% HAM%S/O NAME* 0.013 0.153 0.080 __RULEGEN_PHISH_BLR6YY 0.006 0.286 0.022 __RULEGEN_PHISH_0ATBRI 0.008 0.334 0.023

Re: Rule updates....

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:35:04 +0100 Axb wrote: On 12/18/2014 06:27 PM, RW wrote: Unless there's a bug, the fact that those disclaimer phrases got through suggests that these rules are either intended to be very much more aggressive than the SOUGHT rules, or the ham corpus isn't good

Re: Rule updates....

On 12/18/2014 06:27 PM, RW wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:10:05 +0100 Axb wrote: https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/ replaces any older version. leech while it lasts adjust scores if needed.. There are some rules that shouldn't be there. (I only tested a few that looked the

Re: Rule updates....

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:10:05 +0100 Axb wrote: https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/ replaces any older version. leech while it lasts adjust scores if needed.. There are some rules that shouldn't be there. (I only tested a few that looked the most dubious) The first is a

Re: Rule updates....

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014, RW wrote: Unless there's a bug, the fact that those disclaimer phrases got through suggests that these rules are either intended to be very much more aggressive than the SOUGHT rules, or the ham corpus isn't good enough. Probably the latter. -- John Hardin KA7OHZ

Re: Rule updates....

On 2014.12.16 07.10, Axb wrote: https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/ thanks for this. it's particularly timely for us, as we've just recently been pretty badly phished. is there a method which can be used to measure/report on the efficacy of these particular rules? -ben

Re: Rule updates....

On 12/17/2014 04:08 PM, btb wrote: On 2014.12.16 07.10, Axb wrote: https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/ thanks for this. it's particularly timely for us, as we've just recently been pretty badly phished. is there a method which can be used to measure/report on the efficacy of these

Rule updates....

https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/ replaces any older version. leech while it lasts adjust scores if needed.. -- DISCLAIMER: - These rules are unsupported and may cause harm to your mailflow. - Use at you own risk - If you don't know what these files are for, hands off! -

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:31:11 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: Run. Is that an option? Not yet. And alternatives will cost at least double, for half of what I get via sprint. Just to be clear -- and absolutely no excuse to tamper with raw traffic like this -- are

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:13:13 +0100 RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:56:10 -0700 jdebert wrote: I cannot trust that the response received by sa-update is valid. Is there another method to check for updates? If you really cannot trust

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:56:10 -0700 jdebert wrote: I cannot trust that the response received by sa-update is valid. Is there another method to check for updates? If you really cannot trust *.updates.spamassassin.org DNS responses, you cannot trust *any* DNS response. Including all

Alternate method to check for rule updates?

Sprint, which I use for net access is hijacking DNS. I cannot trust that the response received by sa-update is valid. Is there another method to check for updates? BTW, 1609892 is being given as the current version. It's been at this version for at least a few days. jd

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, jdebert wrote: BTW, 1609892 is being given as the current version. It's been at this version for at least a few days. Masscheck corpora are starved at the moment. It's being analyzed. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:32 -0700, jdebert wrote: Sprint, which I use for net access is hijacking DNS. What exactly do you mean hijacking? Routing NXDOMAIN to some sort of advertising web-server? Or serious packet-sniffing tampering with *any* DNS query crossing their hardware? I cannot trust

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 03:30 +0200, me wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:32 -0700, jdebert wrote: Sprint, which I use for net access is hijacking DNS. I cannot trust that the response received by sa-update is valid. Is there another method to check for updates? Let me clarify a little. If

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:30:19 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:32 -0700, jdebert wrote: Sprint, which I use for net access is hijacking DNS. What exactly do you mean hijacking? Routing NXDOMAIN to some sort of advertising web-server? Or

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, jdebert wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:30:19 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:32 -0700, jdebert wrote: Sprint, which I use for net access is hijacking DNS. What exactly do you mean hijacking? Routing NXDOMAIN to some sort

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On 2014-07-24 18:56, jdebert wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:30:19 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:32 -0700, jdebert wrote: Sprint, which I use for net access is hijacking DNS. What exactly do you mean hijacking? Routing NXDOMAIN to some sort of

Re: Alternate method to check for rule updates?

On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 18:56 -0700, jdebert wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:30:19 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:32 -0700, jdebert wrote: Sprint, which I use for net access is hijacking DNS. What exactly do you mean hijacking? Routing NXDOMAIN to some sort of

Rule updates?

Hi, After checking the results of sa-update and doing some manual dns queries, it seems that last rule updates were done more than a month ago. This used to be an almost daily process, even when there were only score changes due to masschecks. Any specific reason for no new updates? Something we

Re: Rule updates?

On 5/22/2014 9:04 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: After checking the results of sa-update and doing some manual dns queries, it seems that last rule updates were done more than a month ago. This used to be an almost daily process, even when there were only score changes due to masschecks. Any specific

Re: Rule updates?

On 05/22/2014 03:36 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 5/22/2014 9:04 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: After checking the results of sa-update and doing some manual dns queries, it seems that last rule updates were done more than a month ago. This used to be an almost daily process, even when there were

Re: Rule updates

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 13:51, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 10/19, Jim Popovitch wrote: Is the missing entity one person, several people, many people?  Was there an untimely death?   I believe everyone is now aware that there

Re: Rule updates

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Jim Popovitch wrote: I just got a new update. THANKS Now, what can I do to contribute to providing updates? Start generating hand-classified spam and ham corpora, set up SVN to keep a local up-to-date snapshot of SA and the rules sandboxes, then start running

Re: Rule updates

' is because there are no rule updates since Aug 27? --Robert

Re: Rule updates

generation to run to create the rule updates. Counts as of the last (net) run: Non-spams: 136261 (90.8% of the minimum) Spams: 351950 (234.6% of the minimum) So, how do we get it top-up'ed? You contribute your data: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck The more we have, the more

Re: Rule updates

need to be above the blue line (150,000 emails each) for score generation to run to create the rule updates. Counts as of the last (net) run: Non-spams: 136261  (90.8% of the minimum) Spams:     351950 (234.6% of the minimum) So, how do we get it top-up'ed? You contribute your data: http

Re: Rule updates

On 10/19, Jim Popovitch wrote: Is the missing entity one person, several people, many people? Was there an untimely death? I believe everyone is now aware that there exists a problem, how to we bridge the gap? My guess is that the only person familiar with the system is the original author

Re: Rule updates

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 10/19, Jim Popovitch wrote: Is the missing entity one person, several people, many people? Was there an untimely death? I believe everyone is now aware that there exists a problem, how to we bridge the gap? My guess is that the only

Re: Rule updates

On 04-10-2011 15:39, Michael Scheidell wrote: what is 'long'? As you can see from your own example, rules were updated daily until august 26th. Then there hasn't been any updates since. That is 'long' for me. I can also see that updates are daily for 3.4.0 currently. Does that mean that

Re: Rule updates

On 04-10-2011 15:43, Jim Popovitch wrote: what is 'long'? Since 27-Aug-2011 ? So, not just me then. -- Lars

Re: Rule updates

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:50:08 +0200 Lars Jørgensen wrote: On 04-10-2011 15:39, Michael Scheidell wrote: what is 'long'? As you can see from your own example, rules were updated daily until august 26th. Then there hasn't been any updates since. That is 'long' for me. I can also see

Re: Rule updates

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 17:41, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: The usual reason for a hiatus is that too much spam or ham has aged-out in the corpora, and a top-up is needed. So, how do we get it top-up'ed? -Jim P.

Rule updates

Hi, Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to the spamassassin ruleset? -- Lars

Re: Rule updates

On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote: Hi, Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to the spamassassin ruleset? what is 'long'? ls -lt *.tar.gz | grep 'gz$' | head -rw-r--r-- 1 rsync rsync 170211 Oct 4 04:51 1178724.tar.gz -- 3.4.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 rsync

Re: Rule updates

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 09:39, Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote: On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote: Hi, Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to the spamassassin ruleset? what is 'long'? Since 27-Aug-2011 ? $ ll

Re: Rule updates

On 04/10/2011 14:39, Michael Scheidell wrote: On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote: Hi, Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to the spamassassin ruleset? Most common reasons for a problem (IME, on FreeBSD) Incorrect permissions on directory Incorrect

Re: Rule updates

makes me doubt whether the upgrade is necessary. I expect rule updates to remain compatible throughout the 3.3.x series, so as long as updates are happening for any 3.3.x version, you you should get them, and they should work, with 3.3.1 (and 3.3.0, etc.). That *could* change, I suppose

Rule updates

be updated frequently for 3.3.1 from now on? Or do I need to move to 3.3.2 to get regular rule updates? Lars

Re: Rule updates

The rule updates is handled by themselfs but some require certains versions of spamassassin (see /var/lib/spamassassin) or man sa-update Lars Jørgensen-6 wrote: Hi, I noticed the rules for 3.3.1 were updated during the weekend (don't worry about my workaholism, I noticed this monday

Re: Rule updates

expect rule updates to remain compatible throughout the 3.3.x series, so as long as updates are happening for any 3.3.x version, you you should get them, and they should work, with 3.3.1 (and 3.3.0, etc.). That *could* change, I suppose, but I don't expect it. There has been talk of adding a rule

Rule Updates – Emergency Fix is OUT

Just a quick note to spread the word... A new rule updates tarball (1083703) for all 3.3.x versions has been pushed manually by Daryl, about 16 hours ago. The new rules tarball includes the fix of meta-ing out, zeroing the affected sub-rules (see bug 6558 comment 3 [1]) causing an issue

Next Version of SA and New Rule Updates

Any Idea of when we will expect a new version of SA or new rule updates. We are getting hit pretty hard with Spam lately.

Re: Next Version of SA and New Rule Updates

Hi! Any Idea of when  we will expect a new version of SA or new rule updates. We are getting hit pretty hard with Spam lately. Feel free to submit rules, dont just sit and wait. ;) Bye, Raymond.

Re: Next Version of SA and New Rule Updates

. :) On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 16:58 -0400, Jeremy Davila wrote: Any Idea of when we will expect a new version of SA or new rule updates. When it is done. So much for the standard Open Source answer. You did read some recent posts talking about 3.3 work ongoing? Which version are you running

RE: sare rule updates ?

Rob McEwen wrote: Check out Justin Mason's SOUGHT rules. They are very effective and are updated frequently. They have been around for many months, but I just started using them a few weeks ago. These rules are built dynamically and in an automated fashion using messages from spam trap

RE: sare rule updates ?

Yet Another Ninja wrote: SARE recommends shutting off all updates and wait for any announcement. The decline of SARE would seem to significantly devalue SA. We've been noticing a significant increase in missed spam over the past few months. Are there other sources for maintained rulesets

Re: sare rule updates ?

Alan Lehman wrote: The decline of SARE would seem to significantly devalue SA. We've been noticing a significant increase in missed spam over the past few months. Are there other sources for maintained rulesets (besides me writing them myself)? Check out Justin Mason's SOUGHT rules. They are

sare rule updates ?

Seeing that Jari posted a large channels.txt file with lots of sare rule updates... I am wondering... When was the last time any of the sare rules were updated? I actually do not recall any of the ones we use being updated in many months, and it appears he checks hourly... Anyone? - rh

sare rule updates ?

Seeing that Jari posted a large channels.txt file with lots of sare rule updates... I am wondering... When was the last time any of the sare rules were updated? I actually do not recall any of the ones we use being updated in many months, and it appears he checks hourly... Anyone? - rh

  1   2   >