Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
snip
Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs.
Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 REPLY:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:22:59 -0500, you wrote:
Eric Carlson wrote:
SA 3.0.2 on FC3. I added a whitelist_from entry for the local domain
in local.cf and understood it would add -100 to the score. The problem
is performance of mantis, our bugtracker, which sends email for each
action. Turns out
Hi all,
I have a problem with a Bayes.
I've upgraded perl-5.8.5 to 5.8.7 then portupgrade of p5-Mail-Spamassassin was
done.
After sa-learn and restart I lost bayes marks in mail messages.
I have a following strings in a local.cf:
use_bayes 1
bayes_path
Title: FW: META: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Norman De Forest - sad news]
This is extremly sad news. Those that dealt with Norman, know what a great help he was. He will be greatly missed.
Posted to SPAM-L
- Forwarded message from Ant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Ant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
how do I generate stats on Spam Assassin?
percentages and things.
Thanks for the help
Ben
On Sunday 05 February 2006 17:41, Doc Schneider wrote:
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:14 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Pump and Dump SARE rules
On Mon, February 6, 2006 9:49 am, Benjamin Adams wrote:
how do I generate stats on Spam Assassin?
percentages and things.
http://www.cynistar.net/~apthorpe/code/sa-contrib/sa-stats.html
Is a good start, others might have some other reccomendations.
Evan
Hi again,
I added them and had to change the 1st { in the 1st rule for a ( in
order spamd not to complain about it. Anyway, it doesn't work :(
Thanks anyway
Ruben
-Mensaje original-
De: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: lunes, 06 de febrero de 2006 1:23
Para:
Hi,
I had been attacked by a spam ( http://60.49.100.123/news5860.txt ) in all
my mail servers.
Surprising it has a 0:0 hit.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,UPPERCASE_25_50
autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0
What are your scores? Which ruleset do u use to
I'm running this on Mac OS X,
sa-stats is not located on the machine.
I tried installing through perl -MCPAN but it doesn't know what it is
I tried downloading it from spam assassin and running but missing
perl additions.
Any other way program?
Ben
On Feb 6, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Evan Platt
header MY_NEWS Subject =~
/^Re:\s[0-9]*[a-z]*\snews\s[0-9]*[0-9]*[0-9]*[0-9]*/i
score MY_NEWS 6
Ruben
-Mensaje original-
De: Spamassassin List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: lunes, 06 de febrero de 2006 19:56
Para: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Asunto: query score for Re: r
I just got one like that a few minutes ago... this is what the log says:
Feb 6 14:05:37 mail spamd[26278]: result: Y 7 -
BAYES_95,HTML_90_100,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_XBL
-Original Message-
From: Spamassassin List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February
Benjamin Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
on 02/06/2006 12:58:20 PM:
I'm running this on Mac OS X,
sa-stats is not located on the machine.
I tried installing through perl -MCPAN but it doesn't know what it
is
I tried downloading it from spam assassin and running but missing
perl additions.
ok I have the file next thing, spamd has no log:I added the fallowing to syslog.conf!!spamddaemon.info /var/log/spamddaemon.debug /dev/null!*with this will /var/log/spamd file?or a directory where I need to
I added them and had to change the 1st { in the 1st rule for a ( in
Hum, yes. That should have been a left parend.
order spamd not to complain about it. Anyway, it doesn't work :(
Could try /is instead of just /i on the end of the regexes, that might help.
The trouble is this sort of rule
Hi,
It seems it doesn't want to work, it just didn't match this:
From: rkfexklqc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fw: oscarbru
Ruben
-Mensaje original-
De: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: lunes, 06 de febrero de 2006 21:14
Para: Ruben Cardenal;
It seems it doesn't want to work, it just didn't match this:
From: rkfexklqc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fw: oscarbru
Ah, ok. As I said, it would match names in characters, and not one of the
dozen or so other valid formats. You have one of those other formats. Try
That one works! Thanks :)
Ruben
-Mensaje original-
De: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: lunes, 06 de febrero de 2006 21:52
Para: Ruben Cardenal; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Asunto: RE: Little custom rule
It seems it doesn't want to work, it just didn't match
header L_S_SW_LOWPRSubject =~/\bS[o0]ftw[a4]r[e3] At L[o0]w
Pr[i1]c[e3]s?\b/i
You have a spurious line wrap above. Join it to the end of the line
above so that it will have the w followed by the Pr[. That will
help. ALWAYS run SpamAssassin --lint when you make a change like that
and
Getting a lot of these:
Argument \0楰. isn't numeric in addition (+) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/Mail/SpamAssassin/Bayes.pm line 1337,
GEN154 line 663.
What is this?
Thanks in advance.
Marc Perkel wrote:
Getting a lot of these:
Argument \0楰. isn't numeric in addition (+) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/Mail/SpamAssassin/Bayes.pm line 1337,
GEN154 line 663.
What is this?
Usually the isn't numeric in addition errors are a severely borked
configuration option that you
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
snip
Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs.
Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 REPLY:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm not protesting anything.
So blocking Comcast is not a public gesture of disapproval?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protest
noun definition 2:
An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.
I'm refusing to accept email
Philip,
Methinks that's a very silly policy. You're aren't hurting Comcast an iota;
but you sure are penalizing yourself, your users, and their email contacts.
A properly configured SA box will block spam from Comcast subscribers as
well as from anyone else so I don't see what you are trying
Matt Kettler wrote:
So my experience is that blocking based on rDNS is a waste of time,
and a lot of people on the mimedefang mailing list agree with that.
I hate to say it, but blocking based on return-path is an even greater waste
of
time. Return-paths are readily forged.
While I'll
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm not protesting anything.
So blocking Comcast is not a public gesture of disapproval?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protest
noun definition 2:
An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.
Richard Ozer wrote:
Philip,
Methinks that's a very silly policy. You're aren't hurting Comcast an
iota; but you sure are penalizing yourself, your users, and their
email contacts. A properly configured SA box will block spam from
Comcast subscribers as well as from anyone else so I don't
I am currently seeking employment for 8 or 9 weeks in May and June
2006.[1] I would greatly enjoy working for a company involved in the
anti-spam / e-mail security industry, especially if it would allow me
to use or contribute to the Apache SpamAssassin project.
As you may know, I've been a
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
BTW: A finer point is that I block Comcast USER IP addresses. If
Comcast has mail servers that have a
Philip Prindeville wrote:
As for properly configured SA... Well, maybe I'm lacking technical
competence and going for the low-hanging fruit, then.
Refusing help from Matt Kettler sure rules out getting a lot of that
low-hanging fruit.
Daryl
Hello Brian,
Sunday, February 5, 2006, 4:52:00 AM, you wrote:
BSM If I use spamassassin -D --lint then it reveals that I'm at 3.0.2
BSM I have posted the x-spam-status from 15 messages at
BSM http://www.meehanontheweb.com/xspamstatus.txt
BSM (the software_spam_rule, which looks for 'software'
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
No. We have laws against spam that hopefully most legitimate ISP's attempt
to
Philip,
From what I have read, people have given you complete and logic advice
on how to do this properly. Yeah, the US has laws regarding SPAM. They
also have laws on drinking and driving. Law's are reactive. But, if
you wish to forego the advice of list members then you should probably
I'm not waging any mini-flames.
I was asked (and I assumed it was with sincerity) what
I did and why, and I answered with sincerity.
I'm not saying what I do is the best solution, or advocate
anyone else doing the same thing.
And yes, we have laws against drinking and driving: If
I said that I
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
No. We have laws against spam that hopefully most
Hello,
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Couple of newbie questions... (repost)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:59:34 -0500
(snip...)
Consider this porn spam:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from bgp01061386bgs.taylor01.mi.comcast.net
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
No.
Hi,
I want to write a personal domain-wise rule
The rule I am using now is
header __TO_DOMAIN_NETToCc =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
But the above rule would match @domain.net as well as
@domain.net.in
Which is the best way to match only @domain.net and not @domain.net.in
Thanks
Ram
38 matches
Mail list logo
