...
Hello List,
Thursday, May 26, 2005, 10:05:26 AM, you wrote:
LMU Though nobody seems to have said it exactly this way: It seems
LMU to be becoming very obvious that the people who say the have problems
LMU with Bayes are those who support a diverse group of users (e.g. ISPs
LMU and email
I have a custom black list with rules like :
blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How can one make sure these rules are picked up by spamassassin as these
emails are still getting through
Spamassassin running on Freebsd.
Hello List,
Thursday, May 26, 2005, 11:01:23 PM, you wrote:
LMU P.S. I know the account says List Mail User, but why is this the only
LMU mailing list that almost uniformly references me that way? Though, I do
LMU get called by the sobriquet Administrative User when I use accounts
LMU which are
header.cf and specific.cf files updated. Other than correcting
version numbers and dates (used next version number, 5/27 as date),
the only changes are moving two rules from header0 to header1.
Anyone who does manual updates and has this morning's versions in
place can leave them there. If you
Bob,
The Staples mention was of interest since I get their weekly ads
to an account here. The very last one hit BAYES_50, but all the others
were from BAYES_00 to (from a 3.0.1 install) BAYES_44. - Most were BAYES_20
(I looked back 4 months - how long that account's mail is kept
Where can I get the latest version for windows?
Will this do: http://search.cpan.org/~freeside/Mail-SPF-Query-1.997/
When I do:
F:\Perl\binppm verify --upgrade Mail-SPF-Query
I get:
Package 'Mail-SPF-Query' is up to date.
Thanks
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Sneaky one you are - you got around my Reply-To markup for this list. For
that you get an extra copy. {^_-})
jdow wrote:
One way to keep Bayes from running is to never train it.
{^_^}
You'd also disable autolearning. By default SA will eventually
From: List Mail User [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though nobody seems to have said it exactly this way: It seems
to be becoming very obvious that the people who say the have problems
with Bayes are those who support a diverse group of users (e.g. ISPs
and email providers) and those who find it works
From: Jim Maul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gotta stop smokin the green ;)
Yeah, it's better if you shovel the random greens you find into the
compost pit. Not many people will look for them in a compost pit when
they get reported as missing persons.
{O,o}
On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
JC 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from
JC listing) in SURBLs?
Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the
same as the From address or routing server. However, the primary web
sites
I have a custom black list with rules like :
blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How can one make sure these rules are picked up by spamassassin as these
emails are still getting through
You don't say if there are any indications of whether these rules are
hitting and the mail is still
Sorry. If I'm not bitching, I'm not happy. Robert Menschel [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/26/2005 8:39 PM
Hello Joe,Thursday, May 26, 2005, 7:37:55 AM, you wrote:JZ Can someone get the file specific information straight forJZ those of us who download manually? ...Sure, someone could. Apparently not me.
Hi,
it ist possible to whitlist word or phrases?
In my blacklist i've got the most freemailer adresses
like hotmail, gmx lycos a.s.o.
But sometimes i got ebay responses or online contacts
from people who uses freemail adresses.
it is possible to whitelist phrases like Ebay antwort or
online
it is possible to whitelist phrases like Ebay antwort or
online kontakt ... ?
Depends on what you mean by 'whitelist'. The specific answer is 'no'. The
general answer is 'yes'.
There is no whitelist random phrase command. But there are rules, which
can look for random phrases in the body or
JamesDR wrote:
As far as ease of setup? When I first started with SA I was more of the
doze admin than the Linux admin.
I've been doing Linux stuff since around 1996/1997 and have my own
dedicated server that I get to ruin^H^H^H^play with before rolling it
across work-related matters. I'd
Title: RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions
2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while on
hold with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
Well, of course, let's assume another 30 minutes for the second
Hi
I've been attempting to get the split line URL rule working - this one..
rawbody __LW_URI_CR1 /href=\[^]*\r[^\n]/is
full __LW_URI_CR2 /href=\[^]*\r[^\n]/is
meta LW_URI_CR __LW_URI_CR1 || __LW_URI_CR2
score LW_URI_CR 2
describe LW_URI_CR unescaped cr in uri
I get quite a few spams
Which dont seem to trigger the above rule. Any ideas?
Not really. That's my rule and it works fine here, and many other places.
However, you aren't the first to say it doesn't work for them.
I'm guessing you are using something other than procmail/spamd to process
mail, or maybe you are
I think i may be overlooking something to do with the white list here...
I like a lot of you regularly get SA list traffic being diverted to the
junk folder.. mydomain.com as a main focus in our examples...
So step in whitelist_from
Running sitewide (atm) for a university (may soon switch to
Loren
ok I've added the alternative in with a slightly different name so I've
got both in the setup.
I note that if I run spamassassin -D test.eml on an example the rules
don't fire either, so I don't think its MailScanner getting in the way.
Running SA 3.0.3 (from CPAN) with perl 5.8.5
Loren Wilton wrote:
Which dont seem to trigger the above rule. Any ideas?
Not really. That's my rule and it works fine here, and many other places.
However, you aren't the first to say it doesn't work for them.
I'm guessing you are using something other than procmail/spamd to process
I may well be wrong, but I didn't think you could put more than one host
identifier on a single whitelist_from command. So what you showed would
take 4 lines.
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] *.apache.org *.exim.org
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_from [EMAIL
2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while on
hold with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
Well, of course, let's assume another 30 minutes for the second level support
person to finally fix my
2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while on
hold with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
Well, of course, let's assume another 30 minutes for the second level support
person to finally fix my
Original Message
Subject: My OECD paper on spam
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:21:00 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Downloadable from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/34935342.pdf
This is linked from the OECD antispam toolkit page, as
Ronan,
whitelist_from hits on the from header. This list sets the from header
to the person sending the email (as it should). Therefore your
whitelist_from entries won't work as you have them. I use
whitelist_from_rcvd instead.
This is my entry for this list:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL
At 11:19 AM 5/27/2005, Philip Wege wrote:
I have a custom black list with rules like :
blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How can one make sure these rules are picked up by spamassassin as these
emails are still getting through
Hmm, sounds like the blacklist isn't matching. blacklist_from
Can anyone recommend a good logfile analyzer for Spamassassin?
Hi
I have been bugged a lot by embedded image spams recently, although some
of these spams got trapped due URI checks, some managed to pass as well
as the url wasn't yet blocked in the SURBLs.
I probably found something tht i wanted to share with u guys and try and
see if we can trap those
On 5/27/05, aecioneto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while on
hold with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
Hi there,
Any idea how many 'commercial solutions'
-Original Message-
From: Jon Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:25 AM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Logfile analyzer
Can anyone recommend a good logfile analyzer for Spamassassin?
Depends on what you want to analyze. One of the ninjas wrote a great script
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 06:38:00PM -0700, Robert Menschel wrote:
Hello Mark,
Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 10:29:16 AM, you wrote:
...
MGT I had no troubles with SpamAssassin-3.0.2, but after following the same
MGT configure and build steps, I'm getting a test failure on 3.0.3, for a
MGT
OK. I misunderstood. The URIBLS are working fine. Interestingly, although
I use the SARE rules and URIBLS, some spam is still slipping through. This
spam is fairly obvious spam some I am a bit surprised. Should I be tweaking
the scoring?
MK == Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MK
On Friday, May 27, 2005, 6:24:08 AM, Rakesh Rakesh wrote:
Hi
I have been bugged a lot by embedded image spams recently, although some
of these spams got trapped due URI checks, some managed to pass as well
as the url wasn't yet blocked in the SURBLs.
Please provide the URI and the
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:47 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
OK. I misunderstood. The URIBLS are working fine.
Interestingly, although
I use the SARE rules and URIBLS,
Chris Santerre wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good logfile analyzer for Spamassassin?
Depends on what you want to analyze. One of the ninjas wrote a great script
to parse the logs and show rule hit statistics. If you are looking for that
I can see if I can find it my vast archive of ninja
Loren Wilton wrote:
I may well be wrong, but I didn't think you could put more than one
host identifier on a single whitelist_from command. So what you
showed would take 4 lines.
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] *.apache.org *.exim.org
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we are looking to implement SA in our environment this best describes
what we want to do.
[SPAM/HAM] -- [ SA GATEWAY] - [MS EXCHANGE]
- system wide filtering - all user mailboxes
- postfix transport -
Lik Evan has stated, it just queues locally. Same for Sendmail installs. If
we a retalking VERY high traffic, with 1000s of users, then you better have
more then one server. Or a big HD for the queue ;)
--Chris
-Original Message-
From: E. Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
Tony,
Your main question has already been answered, but I noticed something in
your proposed setup that concerns me.
You state in your diagram that you plan to have the MSE box as the
secondary MX record. This would not be a good idea. From experience,
we have seen that spammers try the
Additionally, I was going to point you to a great How-To on setting up
just such a system, but it looks like the wiki was taken over by spammers!
Here's a link to a clean version of the wiki...
http://flakshack.com/anti-spam/wiki/index.php?page=FairlySecureAntiSpamWikiversion=43
Explains the
Kristopher Austin wrote:
You state in your diagram that you plan to have the MSE box as the
secondary MX record. This would not be a good idea. From experience,
we have seen that spammers try the secondary MX first in hopes of
finding a server that is not protected by a spam scanner. This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lima Union writes:
On 5/27/05, aecioneto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while on
hold with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of
Title: 70_sare_header.cf dupe
Checking for duplicate rules using the following command,
cat *.cf | awk '/^score/ {print $2}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | awk '{if ($1 1) print $0}' | more
I found the following duplicate:
# grep -n SARE_MSGID_LONG50 * | grep score
David B Funk wrote:
Yes, but don't forget, while Kevin was on hold waiting for his
SA support message -he- got to pick the music that he listened to
rather than being forced to listen to the commercial vender's 'elevator
muzak' and ads, makes the price all the easier to take. ;)
That probably
My domain geekster.com has been Joe jobbed for the last couple
of weeks. In spite of the fact that I responsibly created SPF
records for my domain, I am getting flooded with bounce messages
from other mail systems that don't understand most spam from
addresses are forged. Fortunatly AOL seems
Lima Union wrote:
Any idea how many 'commercial solutions' depend on SA ?
The Barracuda does IIRC and doesn't MessageLabs also use SA (amongst
other things)?
Regards,
Martyn
Tony pace wrote:
Thanks for all the input.
The diagram was simplistic - the real MSE is a couple layers away.
One thing that no one has mentioned is that it's vitally important that
the edge gateway (the postfix system) have a way of knowing what users
are valid. Otherwise you will end up
list most of dynamic IPs not just the dynamic IPs sending spam.
Ing. Alejandro Rodriguez
Gerente Tecnico
Cybercom
Ryan L. Sun wrote:
Does "dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net" list all the dynamic IPs?
Or just the dynamic IPs which fall in spamtrap?
Thanks.
On 5/25/05, Ing. Alejandro Rodriguez [EMAIL
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 12:16:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this is an awesome idea!
I hate getting stupid emails about how my spam or virus was rejected from
someone I've never heard of. I can't very well be sending out Outlook
viruses
from a Linux box!
Its just adding
70_sare_header.cf dupe- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Checking for duplicate rules using the following command,
cat *.cf | awk '/^score/ {print $2}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | awk
'{if ($1 1) print $0}' | more
I found the following duplicate:
# grep -n
I sent an email to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' about those the first two
(VIRUS_WARN...)
-Original Message-
From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:47 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: 70_sare_header.cf dupe
70_sare_header.cf dupe- Original
Frank Coons wrote:
Does Exim allows LDAP queries across a DMZ or do both machines need to
be either inside or outside the DMZ for it to work?
I've never tried it, but it's just a TCP connection. As far as I know
it should work, as long as the firewall is not blocking the connection.
I
David Brodbeck wrote:
Frank Coons wrote:
Does Exim allows LDAP queries across a DMZ or do both machines need to
be either inside or outside the DMZ for it to work?
Exim (and anything else) shouldnt care if one machine is in the DMZ.
They dont both need to be in the DMZ to work. However,
Where I can find docs for local.cf and usaer_templates rules and tests.
For instance, I have added some whitelist entries like this,
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED]google.com
which is not working. The spam score is 5.0/5.0 so it is still tagged.
Thanks,
Craig Jackson
Eric A. Hall wrote:
Every filtering system requires admin time, and if the reviews don't say
as much then they're junk.
There is a critical difference with SA, however, which is that the admins
need to be proficient at stuff like CPAN, Perl, etc., while some of the
packaged offerings provide
I'd like to turn off AWL. I remember there used to be a switch in SA to
do this but it's not there any more. I start spamd with -x -L
Thanks,
Craig Jackson
Steven Dickenson wrote:
Eric A. Hall wrote:
simple click-the-button GUI,
apt-get install exim4-daemon-heavy spamassassin clamav-daemon razor
Steven, I don't think you give yourself enough credit :)
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business
Martyn Drake wrote:
Ironically, after many years of faithful Linux use we're going down the
Exchange route and mail handling to be given over to another department.
I doubt we'll see a SA Linux box there. Oh well. I'm used to
disapointments over the years, so it wasn't too much of a
Craig Jackson wrote:
I'd like to turn off AWL. I remember there used to be a switch in SA to
do this but it's not there any more. I start spamd with -x -L
It was moved to the configuration files in v3. Put
use_auto_whitelist 0
in your local.cf.
- S
Ronan McGlue wrote:
I like a lot of you regularly get SA list traffic being diverted to the
junk folder.. mydomain.com as a main focus in our examples...
but in the local.cf file i have the following
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] *.apache.org *.exim.org
Use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bingo. I have a similar setup in place (s/postfix/sendmail/) and I
don't have my Exchange box listed as an MX at all. I also have port
25 to the Exchange box firewalled off at the router to avoid
portscanning.
Not a good idea, IMHO. What happens if your SA gateway
Matthew S. Cramer wrote:
If an email is from or MAILER-DAEMON then I check the mail for a
line that looks like /^Received.*one.of.our.ip.addresses/. If it
doesn't have the line, then I reject the mail with a 554 and Bounced
message did not originate here.
This has eliminated all the bogus
Craig Jackson wrote:
Where I can find docs for local.cf and usaer_templates rules and tests.
For instance, I have added some whitelist entries like this,
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED]google.com
which is not working. The spam score is 5.0/5.0 so it is still tagged.
Thanks,
Is there a way to apply the fix in 3.0.2 ?
regards,
wolfgang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Prior writes:
My domain geekster.com has been Joe jobbed for the last couple
of weeks. In spite of the fact that I responsibly created SPF
records for my domain, I am getting flooded with bounce messages
from other mail systems that don't
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:13:44PM +0200, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
Is there a way to apply the fix in 3.0.2 ?
First, it's http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4213 that you
want to look at (it has the patches).
Second, you can try downloading the patches and applying to the 3.0.2
Justin Mason wrote:
A BL would probably be helpful -- but sadly some *really big* networks
(Earthlink's challenge-response) and companies (Fortune 500s) produce
these bounces, too, so it'd have serious FP potential, since those mail
relay IP addresses produce both the bounces and the legit
Actually, you can forward viruses from a Linux box if the virus is an
attachment
or embedded in the message. It makes no difference what OS you are using when
you send the message. Linux only protects us from the viruses that want to
harm Windows.
Thanks,
Antonio DeLaCruz
Quoting [EMAIL
Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
Is there a way to apply the fix in 3.0.2 ?
I've tried applying the patch but I'm not sure if it fixed the problem.
Do you have an example of a URL that is supposed to be fixed?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Recently we've been seeing a *lot* of Exim users asking questions
(here and on IRC) about spamd chewing up massive quantities of
RAM.
It appears that Exiscan has now become part of Exim by default,
and it also appears that (at least in the default
Steven Dickenson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bingo. I have a similar setup in place (s/postfix/sendmail/) and I
don't have my Exchange box listed as an MX at all. I also have port
25 to the Exchange box firewalled off at the router to avoid
portscanning.
Not a good idea, IMHO. What
On 05/27/05 21:39, Stuart Johnston wrote:
Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
Is there a way to apply the fix in 3.0.2 ?
I've tried applying the patch but I'm not sure if it fixed the problem.
Do you have an example of a URL that is supposed to be fixed?
echo -e Subject:
Justin Mason wrote:
It appears that Exiscan has now become part of Exim by default,
and it also appears that (at least in the default exiscan patch)
it doesn't modify the config files directly to add itself to
the MTA's flow.
This is correct. The shipped configuration file doesn't include any
Hi there,
Can anyone help me out with the attached message? To me
this is obvious spam, but I dont know why it got through. I have my
spamassassin score set to 5, but when I run spamassassin D on this, I only
get a couple points. Im wondering if Im missing some important
ruleset or
Jason Bennett wrote:
Hi there,
Can anyone help me out with the attached message? To me this is
obvious spam, but I dont know why it got through. I have my
spamassassin score set to 5, but when I run spamassassin D on this, I
only get a couple points. Im wondering if Im missing some
Sorry all, let me try this again. Attached is the message I
was referring to in my previous posting.
Thanks
Jason
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from calgty1.forzani.com ([172.16.112.6]) by
CALMAIL01.fglcorporate.net with Microsoft
I needed to get this working this week and found the RemoteImapFolder
wiki page. I decided to use that method
here are the steps I did to make this work for me. I use qmail instead
of cyrus so needed to change the redelivery method also. I don't have a
username on the wiki and thought I see if
Hello Craig,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 11:10:55 AM, you wrote:
CJ Where I can find docs for local.cf and usaer_templates rules and tests.
It would help to know which version of SA you're using, since syntax
sometimes changes.
CJ For instance, I have added some whitelist entries like this,
CJ
Hello Donald,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 9:54:15 AM, you wrote:
DDbc Checking for duplicate rules using the following command,
DDbc cat *.cf | awk '/^score/ {print $2}' | sort | uniq -c |
DDbc sort -nr | awk '{if ($1 1) print $0}' | more
DDbc I found the following duplicate:
DDbc # grep -n
Hello Bill,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 10:46:32 AM, you wrote:
BL 70_sare_header.cf dupe- Original Message -
BL From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Checking for duplicate rules using the following command,
cat *.cf | awk '/^score/ {print $2}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | awk
'{if ($1 1) print $0}'
Hello Jeff,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 1:06:46 AM, you wrote:
JC On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
JC 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from
JC listing) in SURBLs?
Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the
same as the
Hello Martin,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 3:52:25 AM, you wrote:
MH Hi
MH I've been attempting to get the split line URL rule working - this one..
I believe the working rule that matches all active spam using this
trick is now active in 70_sare_obfu.cf
Bob Menschel
Hello Jason,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 2:52:40 PM, you wrote:
JB Sorry all, let me try this again. Attached is the message
JB Iwas referring to in my previous posting.
Here in SA 3.0.3 your example hits:
Content analysis details: (9.0 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Matthew S. Cramer wrote:
You could probably do this with a SA rule. I do it with MIMEDefang
milter.
If an email is from or MAILER-DAEMON then I check the mail for a
line that looks like /^Received.*one.of.our.ip.addresses/. If it
doesn't have the line, then I reject
Hello List,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 12:08:46 AM, you wrote:
LMUBob,
LMUThe Staples mention was of interest since I get their weekly ads
LMU to an account here. The very last one hit BAYES_50, but all the others
LMU were from BAYES_00 to (from a 3.0.1 install) BAYES_44. - Most were
On Friday, May 27, 2005, 2:41:50 PM, Jason Bennett wrote:
Can anyone help me out with the attached message? To me this is obvious
spam, but I don't know why it got through. I have my spamassassin score
set to 5, but when I run spamassassin -D on this, I only get a couple
points. I'm
So my question is can we have rulesets in spamassassin that can compare
the sending host domain with the latter part of @ of content id or look
for @ in the content id.
Nice analysis!
Yes, we can make rules that will (often, not always) catch this sort of
thing. The problem is they require a
I am pleased to report the problem is solved.
I obtained and installed the latest Berkeley DB from sleepycat.org,
then the perl module DB_File-1.811. This resolved the problem.
Please open a bug in BZ showing the symptoms and documenting the fix, and
give it a title of something like
Just to keep up; pictilpict4. com is the multitrade group, who now
calls themselves omnicorporation. biz (since every domain with multitrade
in its name has been suspended).
These guys are *very* good at finding techniques to beat both SA
and the SpamCop parser, but they don't
Hmm, then I must have something wrong because I have the URIDNSBL plugin
installed and my network tests are active (not using -L on command line)
and amavisd-new has $SALocalTestsOnly = 0;
When I run this email against commandline spamassassin, I get this (can
anyone point out what I may have
Hi,
Anyone know of a open sourceproject which can
create and manage an email blacklist and also run using qmail, rblsmtpd and even
SpamAssassin rules.
thanks
So my question is can we have rulesets in spamassassin that can compare
the sending host domain with the latter part of @ of content id or look
for @ in the content id.
Hi,
honestly the fact that outlook uses different strings and this spam uses
similar strings for
the boundary and the
Thanks! Can you direct me to the patch? I downloaded and installed
Spamassassin 3.1.0-r170109, but I still get the same results.
Thanks again!
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:44 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Bug 4337.
Loren
95 matches
Mail list logo
