On Oct 28, 2014 at 22:10 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
=>On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
=>Reindl Harald wrote:
=>
=>> frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
=>> procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 22:10 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
> > procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
> > should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is forced to
On 10/28/2014 7:10 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
should somebody step in and maintain it while
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:31:51 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> frankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use
> procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why
> should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is forced to use
> i
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:39 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 10/28/2014 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
som
On 10/28/2014 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of
Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Procmail isn't dead. H
I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are
supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it
somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there.
Procmail isn't dead. However, the Procmail website is simply in
an awful
On Oct 28, 2014 at 07:40 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
=>On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
=>Ian Zimmerman wrote:
=>
=>> Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real
=>> standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
=>
=>It may be a standard, but it
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:43:04 -0700
jdow wrote:
jdow> That is hardly a compelling reason to change from procmail to
jdow> perl, for me or others with working procmail systems. You seem to
jdow> be advocating handing me perl and turning me loose after ripping
jdow> procmail out of my
competence in using Perl to mess with email. :)
I also suspect that most SpamAssassin admins probably have some
competence with perl.
Anyway, we are drifting OT here I guess...
Regards,
David.
That is hardly a compelling reason to change from procmail to perl, for me or
others with workin
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 does not
> make him even barely competent in other
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
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 the support
> > pager that week) t
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
> Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real standard
>> (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
>
> It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near a
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real
> standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was.
It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl.
I have very unusual filtering requirements (
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:43:41 -0400,
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
David> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
David> If you use SpamAssassin, you probably like Perl, so I would
David> recommend Email::Filter instead. It's far more flexible than
Davi
Am 27.10.2014 um 21:04 schrieb Daniel Staal:
> --As of October 27, 2014 8:29:52 PM +0100, Robert Schetterer is alleged
> to have said:
>
>> by the way
>>
>> http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/34896/
>>
>> always have a shellshock patched system these days
--As of October 27, 2014 8:29:52 PM +0100, Robert Schetterer is alleged to
have said:
by the way
http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/34896/
always have a shellshock patched system these days with postfix/procmail
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Interesting. I dug a bit further out of
Am 27.10.2014 um 19:55 schrieb Bob Proulx:
> David F. Skoll wrote:
>> "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>>> Procmail has some weird syntax
>>
>> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
>
> That isn't really a fair assess
David F. Skoll wrote:
> "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> > Procmail has some weird syntax
>
> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
That isn't really a fair assessment of procmail. It is like saying
that 'cp' is unmaintained aban
On 10/24/2014 8:43 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
...I would recommend Email::Filter instead.
Definitely will try it out! Thanks.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:00:29 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> Procmail has some weird syntax
Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell.
If you use SpamAssassin, you probably like Perl, so I would recommend
Email::Filter instead. It's far more flexible
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 03:19:22 AM Alex Woick wrote:
> Timothy Murphy schrieb am 18.06.2014 14:59:
> > I'd prefer to send spam straight to the Spam folder
> > as soon as it is detected by SA.
> > Is this possible?
> I am running the same Linux distribution and set of mail processing
> softwa
Timothy Murphy schrieb am 18.06.2014 14:59:
I'm running Postfix with dovecot, spamass-milter and SpamAssassin
on a CentOS-6.5 server.
At the moment I am sending spam to my spam folder ~/Maildir/.Spam/
with procmail, by appending
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/procmail -f- -a "$USER
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:05:04 +0100
Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Is there something similar I could append instead to use dovecot-lda?
Yes.
mailbox_command = /usr/libexec/dovecot/dovecot-lda
or
mailbox_command = /usr/libexec/dovecot/dovecot-lda -m INBOX
I don't know postfix, so I can't help with t
--As of June 20, 2014 2:05:04 PM +0100, Timothy Murphy is alleged to have
said:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:52:59 PM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Axb> Dovecot's Sieve is your friend. (replaces procmail)
Not really, not in this context. OP is using procmail merely as a LDA.
And
On 6/20/2014 9:05 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
On my CentOS-6.5 system, I have /usr/libexec/dovecot/dovecot-lda
but I don't see any evidence that it is replacing procmail .
I get procmail by appending
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/procmail -f- -a "$USER"
to /etc/postfix/main
On 20/06/2014 14:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Incidentally, nobody really answered my original query -
I don't see why SA couldn't divert spam to a spam-folder,
instead of adding a header?
That would seem much simpler to me.
It isn't what spamassassin does, it just classifies email.
In the s
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:52:59 PM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Axb> Dovecot's Sieve is your friend. (replaces procmail)
>
> Not really, not in this context. OP is using procmail merely as a LDA.
> And in that capacity, is is replaced by the LDA that comes with dovecot.
>
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:24:36 +0200
Axb wrote:
Axb> Dovecot's Sieve is your friend. (replaces procmail)
Not really, not in this context. OP is using procmail merely as a LDA.
And in that capacity, is is replaced by the LDA that comes with dovecot.
On my debian system, it is /usr/lib
On 18.06.14 13:59, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I'm running Postfix with dovecot, spamass-milter and SpamAssassin
on a CentOS-6.5 server.
At the moment I am sending spam to my spam folder ~/Maildir/.Spam/
with procmail, by appending
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/procmail -f- -a "$USER"
On 06/18/2014 02:59 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I'm running Postfix with dovecot, spamass-milter and SpamAssassin
on a CentOS-6.5 server.
At the moment I am sending spam to my spam folder ~/Maildir/.Spam/
with procmail, by appending
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/procmail -f- -a "$USE
On 6/18/2014 8:59 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I'm running Postfix with dovecot, spamass-milter and SpamAssassin
on a CentOS-6.5 server.
At the moment I am sending spam to my spam folder ~/Maildir/.Spam/
with procmail, by appending
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/procmail -f- -a "$USER
I'm running Postfix with dovecot, spamass-milter and SpamAssassin
on a CentOS-6.5 server.
At the moment I am sending spam to my spam folder ~/Maildir/.Spam/
with procmail, by appending
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/procmail -f- -a "$USER"
to /etc/postfix/main.cf .
This seems a li
summary that follows and tell me if you think I
should be seeing better results?
1) rm -rf ~/.spamassassin
2) run a few mails thru procmail/SA with:
cat 5mixedMboxMsgs| formail -e -s procmail -m ${sandbox}/trc
This recreates ~/.spamassassin
the rc file (trc above) has this:
--- 8<
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> 1) Does it matter that I have autolearn turned off in spamassassin
> conf filt 'local.cf' while doing my sandbox work
No, it doesn't. In fact it's probably better that way because SA
won't waste time updating the bayes database with the mi
On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 19:41 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:02:27 -0600
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately, no. While procmail implements some flavor of
> > > "extended" R
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:02:27 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Unfortunately, no. While procmail implements some flavor of
> > "extended" Regular Expressions, there are still quite some
> > differences to other regex engines,
I got sufficien
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:26:32 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> Frightening indeed. Procmail still gives me nightmares.
Yes. I replaced Procmail with Mail::Audit:
http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/Mail-Audit-2.227/lib/Mail/Audit.pm
and now my local delivery agent filter is m
ll need to tell postfix to deliver one recipient at a time to
your filter with "foo_destination_recipient_limit = 1" where foo is
the name of the master.cf transport. See postfix docs or the
postfix-users list for details.
>>> Have you considered the following setup?
>>> * fetc
addressed to more than one local user. But I'd expect postfix
to figure this out and deliver the mail to each user separately, thus
allowing for "per user" mail filtering.
> > Have you considered the following setup?
> > * fetchmail fetches mail from a remote server,
&
MTA is "tricky",
> consider e.g. message to multiple local recipients.
>
> Have you considered the following setup?
> * fetchmail fetches mail from a remote server,
> * fetchmail passes email to procmail script (see "mda" option)
> * procmail script does AV and
etchmail fetches mail from a remote server,
* fetchmail passes email to procmail script (see "mda" option)
* procmail script does AV and AS scans
* procmail delivers the mail to user's Maildir
I use extended variant of the above configuration for years.
[Main change avoids delaying e
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 16:36 -0700, Justin Gould wrote:
> Karsten,
>
> Thank you VERY much for your help with this. You were indeed correct,
> the second scan initiated by Procmail was scanning the report wrapper
> from Postfix and causing the issue. I simply commented out the sp
strator and am still trying to understand it.
>
> To summarize up front, the two issues I need to resolve are: 1. Both
> Postfix and Procmail are running SA against each message. I know this
> needs to be one or the other. 2. Postfix and Procmail are coming up
> with very di
he two issues I need to resolve are: 1. Both Postfix
and Procmail are running SA against each message. I know this needs to be one
or the other. 2. Postfix and Procmail are coming up with very different
results for the same message, both through /usr/bin/spamc.
The previous administrator ha
Hello List Folks,
I have used procmail in the past to move mail to a spam file on the
server but I am wondering if there is another way.
I found
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSpamdInPostfix?action=fullsearch&context=180&value=move+spam+to+folder&titlesearch=
e identified spam(X-Spam-Status: Yes ?)
> go to a global file instead of delivered to the users. The global spam file
> will be readable by only myself and management.
Just create a file and set the permissions to be globally writable,
then point procmail at it.
You can set the read perms
should be expected.
Do you really want that mailbox file to be world-writable?
Alternative: create a spam user, and have procmail _forward_ spams to that
user. Procmail would have to skip SA scoring and forwarding if it was
running as that user, of course.
Then you don't need to worry
On 4/28/09 3:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Ober wrote:
On 4/28/09 11:34 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
It was global and I want it to stay global. The old procmailrc is:
DROPPRIVS=yes
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
No .procmailrc for the users. And
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Ober wrote:
> On 4/28/09 11:34 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> >> DROPPRIVS=yes
> >
> > procmail is being run on behalf of the recipient.
>
> Makes sense, any way to make sure the log is writeable other that to
&g
On 4/28/09 11:34 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
DROPPRIVS=yes
procmail is being run on behalf of the recipient.
Makes sense, any way to make sure the log is writeable other that to
put all the users in a group?
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
VERBOSE=yes
LOGABSTRACT=all
MAILDIR is not
he following is the new version of the /etc/procmailrc:
>
> DROPPRIVS=yes
procmail is being run on behalf of the recipient.
> LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
> VERBOSE=yes
> LOGABSTRACT=all
MAILDIR is not set, so it defaults to $HOME.
Does your "main offsite user" even
Hello Folks,
I am using Spamassassin 3.2.5 with Sendmail 8.14.1 in an installation
for office and offsite users. The initial setup was to have
Spamassassin to rewrite the subject so that the users could setup a
filter in Outlook. Problem is that some users are setup to have their
email forw
On 5-Apr-2009, at 06:07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.04.09 01:56, sebast...@debianfan.de wrote:
i am filtering mails with spamassassin & procmail.
[...]
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: .*\(\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
Maildir/10/new
Maildir/10/new is not a maildir, is it?
Maildir/10/ may be a mai
> i am filtering mails with spamassassin & procmail.
> 10 or more --> directory 10
> 9 --> directory 9
>
> and so one
>
> But - nothing happens - the mails are all in the /Maildir/new directory
Given your last recipe, Maildir/new isn't a directory bu
On 05.04.09 01:56, sebast...@debianfan.de wrote:
> i am filtering mails with spamassassin & procmail.
[...]
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Level: .*\(\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
> Maildir/10/new
Maildir/10/new is not a maildir, is it?
Maildir/10/ may be a maildir, if it is, use Maildir/10/, don&
Jeff Mincy wrote:
>From: "sebast...@debianfan.de"
>Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:56:38 +0200
>
>Hello,
>
>i am filtering mails with spamassassin & procmail.
>
> This is more of a procmail question, so it doesn't actually belong he
sebastian wrote:
> i am filtering mails with spamassassin & procmail.
>
>
> The header of message
>
> X-Spam-Level: **
>
> I want to sort mails into some different directories.
>
[snip]
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Level: .*\(\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
--
From: "sebast...@debianfan.de"
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:56:38 +0200
Hello,
i am filtering mails with spamassassin & procmail.
This is more of a procmail question, so it doesn't actually belong here.
The header of message
Hello,
i am filtering mails with spamassassin & procmail.
The header of message
X-Spam-Level: **
I want to sort mails into some different directories.
10 or more --> directory 10
9 --> directory 9
and so one
But - nothing happens - the mails are all in the /M
On 04.07.08 08:34, Philippe Couas wrote:
> I wante use procmail with spamassassin and put into an spécial directory
> spammed mail.
> But, how could i read theses mail ? do i need to create an special account
> for each user or not ?
I put my spams into _folder_ named "spam
Hi,
I wante use procmail with spamassassin and put into an spécial directory
spammed mail.
But, how could i read theses mail ? do i need to create an special account
for each user or not ?
How could i delete old spammed mail if user don't verify it ? could i make
it with logrotate ?
I s
On 01.07.08 08:48, Philippe Couas wrote:
> I have add procmail to my config to avoid most spam, but il delete others
> mails too.
Do not drop spam below some sane score (8 or 10).
Configure spamassassin and teach bayes filter properly.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I have add procmail to my config to avoid most spam, but il delete others
mails too.
Do you have an idea ?
Regards
Philippe
My /etc/procmailrc file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# cat procmailrc
# Spamassassin utilise le daemon spamd
:0 fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
# si echec
:0e
sr/local/lib/perl5/5.10.0/sun4-solaris
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.10.0/sun4-solaris
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.10.0
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0/sun4-solaris
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Spamassassin-Bayes-not-working-with-Procmail-tp15248899p15249278.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 03:55:22PM -0800, jeff986 wrote:
> It must be something about procmail, but.. I officially have no clue.
> Comments?Ideas? Thanks.
You don't happen to have PERL5LIB or PERLLIB in your environment, do you?
Where is DB_File installed, and what'
ome/jeff/.spamassassin/bayes_toks
[6868] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O
/home/jeff/.spamassassin/bayes_seen
[6868] dbg: bayes: found bayes db version 3
.
.
.
.. and from there functions correctly."Great success!" -Borat
However, if I execute spamassassin from within procmai
f them triggered that lock error.
>
> As well as my test message, I piped an old "real" spam message through and
> they *both* caused the error.
>
> It seems therefore that there is only a problem when Procmail tries to copy a
> message
> that already exists into
very receipt (explicit, because it is a filter, and
> > > > procmail can't lock the target file). IIRC the SA docs do have a lock
> > > > there, too.
> > > >
> > > > :0 fw: spamassassin.lock
> > > > * < 512000
> > > > | spa
; delivery action and therefore does not need a lock.
> >
> > Uhm, where did you read that? Clearly, even a copy can deliver mail.
>
> From man procmailrc:
>
> "You can tell procmail to treat a delivering recipe as if it were a
> non-delivering recipe by specifying
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Arthur Dent wrote:
http://www.issociate.de/board/post/232336/Lock_failure_on_%22spamc.lock%22.html
and
http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/#SA
which tend to suggest that one should NOT put a lock on for SA
processing...
A lock file is not *needed* for spamc
> > > If there is even the slightest chance, your MTA might flood your MDA
> > > with mail during a peek -- add some explicit locking here, even though
> > > this is not a delivery receipt (explicit, because it is a filter, and
> > > procmail can't lock t
test chance, your MTA might flood your MDA
> > with mail during a peek -- add some explicit locking here, even though
> > this is not a delivery receipt (explicit, because it is a filter, and
> > procmail can't lock the target file). IIRC the SA docs do have a lock
> >
gt;
> Did you try commenting out that block?
Ahh.. Interesting! I commented out that block and my test message still caused
the error message BUT... I think it's only the test message that causes
the error (I'm testing with "procmail < tmp/testmail" where testmail is a
m
be a
> > delivery action and therefore does not need a lock.
>
> Uhm, where did you read that? Clearly, even a copy can deliver mail.
>
From man procmailrc:
"You can tell procmail to treat a delivering recipe as if it were a
non-delivering recipe by
specifying t
| /usr/bin/spamc --username=mark
If there is even the slightest chance, your MTA might flood your MDA
with mail during a peek -- add some explicit locking here, even though
this is not a delivery receipt (explicit, because it is a filter, and
procmail can't lock the target file). IIRC the SA
read that? Clearly, even a copy can deliver mail.
:0 c:
backup
> Removing the lock from my backup copy solves the problem.
As per the log snippet from your previous post: Procmail can't acquire
the lock for some reason. But it does not complain that it couldn't
deliver. The mail
ossible because the mail has already been accepted by my ISP.
SA has been VERY effective at stopping most of the rubbish, and now this
Procmail recipe takes some of the strain off.
The only FP I have had was where a round-robin email that included someone
called something like [EMAIL PROTECT
g, when delivering to mbox files. Don't for Maildir.
I do use mbox not maildir.
>
> When delivering, let procmail figure out the appropriate lock. In cases
> where you don't deliver (filters, variable setting, pure nested logic,
> whatever), either don't lock, or giv
jp wrote:
Another option, if you are using postfix, is to setup mydomain.com as a
virtual. Then in /etc/postfix/virtuals, you can
mydomain.com virtual
@mydomain.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and so on... You can ommit the wildcar
you just want to not
accept unspecified addresses at your domain.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:20:59PM +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
> don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for w
Larry Nedry wrote:
On 1/30/08 at 3:20 PM + Arthur Dent wrote:
I am so pleased with this rule that I decided to give my poor old SA a
well-deserved rest from this rubbish and take these spams out at Procmail
time.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of mobile phones out there that
On 1/30/08 at 3:20 PM + Arthur Dent wrote:
>I am so pleased with this rule that I decided to give my poor old SA a
>well-deserved rest from this rubbish and take these spams out at Procmail
>time.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of mobile phones out there that have
email addre
Arthur Dent wrote:
Hello all,
Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
very simple question.
I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the "To" address, either
off-list to help me with this).
>
> If I can have your assistance with just one other thing however. I'm afraid I
> really don't understand file-locking in Procmail (I have read the man and web
> pages) but I'm still baffled.
Do file-locking, when delivering to mbox files.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:20 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
>
> The // are matched literally, they are not used as an RE delimiter. The
> entire string after the asterisk is a regex anyway. Lose the slashes.
>
>
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:20 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
> don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
> very simple question.
>
> I get a lot of spam that has a series o
Hello all,
Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
very simple question.
I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the "To" address, either
in the form To: [
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:50:32AM -0600, Bob McClure Jr wrote:
> Probably not. If I understand correctly, you are calling the
> stand-alone spamassassin from procmail. At that point, SA is running
> as a mere mortal, which never can log to someplace like /var/log.
Just to note, you d
with a new one
> running Solaris 10. I'm using SpamAssassin 3.02 in the blastwave.org
> package. I'm using Postfix for an MTA and Procmail as MDA, with mail
> being filtered through SA by procmail.
>
> I can't seem to find much verbose documentation on this method - I
kage. I'm using Postfix for an MTA and Procmail as MDA, with mail
being filtered through SA by procmail.
I can't seem to find much verbose documentation on this method - I
gather that it's nowhere near as preferred as running spamd.
However, I can't help but notice that SA
Hallo Michael,
Am 2008-01-03 11:53:41, schrieb Michael Bartlett:
> Hi all,
>
> Wonder if you could help me, I'm trying to get my procmailrc to move
> all mail marked as spam into another folder - but it doesn't seem to
> work. I understand that this could be a pr
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:53 +, Michael Bartlett wrote:
> Wonder if you could help me, I'm trying to get my procmailrc to move
> all mail marked as spam into another folder - but it doesn't seem to
> work. I understand that this could be a procmail problem - but just
>
Hi all,
Wonder if you could help me, I'm trying to get my procmailrc to move
all mail marked as spam into another folder - but it doesn't seem to
work. I understand that this could be a procmail problem - but just
wanted to confirm that maybe spamassassin was getting in the way?
This
Hi,
I'm new to SpamAssassin. I'm testing it on an Ubuntu server and I've
configured it site-wide using spamc/spamd. I run spamd as user "spamd"
(--username option). Also, I've installed and configures Razor2 and it seems
to work all ok. My MTA is Sendmail and my
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On Thursday 11 October 2007, Mark wrote:
>>
>>> I'm new to the list, so I hope this is the right place.
>>>
>>> I am running my mail through procmail and separating my spamassassin
>>> into 3 groups dependin
> On Thursday 11 October 2007, Mark wrote:
> >I'm new to the list, so I hope this is the right place.
> >
> >I am running my mail through procmail and separating my spamassassin
> >into 3 groups depending on score:
> >
> >X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[2
On Thursday 11 October 2007, Mark wrote:
>Hi All
>
>I'm new to the list, so I hope this is the right place.
>
>I am running my mail through procmail and separating my spamassassin
>into 3 groups depending on score:
>
>X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[2-9][0-9]
>X
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
