Matt Kettler wrote:
If a spammer is using the same sending address over and over again,
blacklist them entirely.
That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – only that you’re not on any
“narrowcast” lists (e.g. “Email 200,000 British
Lists a écrit :
mouss wrote:
Lists a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Thank you for the information I will attempt to get it up an running,
have had a huge increase in spam last week or so and just trying to
get it under control.
What type of *spam* are you referring
Brian J. Murrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
score up?
And also useful[1] for the
Matt Kettler a écrit :
I am thinking about this case: Joe the spammer bombs you with mail that
is not detected as spam. he gets a negative awl.
That statement implies that there's a score for the user in the AWL.
The AWL score varies with what the current messages pre-awl score. The
AWL can
The old version will still work. 1.5.2 is working for me except that since
starting to use it, I'm seeing more SA timeouts than before. So on one box,
I've gone back to 1.01 to confirm that it is iXhash 1.5.2
-Original Message-
From: RobertH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
Richard Hartmann wrote:
While I agree in general, the text is very static and antivirus eats CPU,
SA does not (so much).
What AV application do you use? Is it daemonized or does it have
to load it's database for every call?
Here SA uses lots more CPU than clamd and fprotd does.
/Jonas
--
Rose, Bobby wrote:
The old version will still work. 1.5.2 is working for me except that since
starting to use it, I'm seeing more SA timeouts than before. So on one box,
I've gone back to 1.01 to confirm that it is iXhash 1.5.2
I'm also seeing more timeouts, and have reverted.
--
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:46:32PM -0700, Kelly Jones wrote:
I want to run a message through ONE SpamAssassin test w/o the overhead
of running all the tests.
Does SA have a --run-just-this-test=FOO option?
It sounds like you want to take a look at the mass-check tool. :)
--
Randomly
Yep. Timeouts have stopped on the node that I switched back to iXhash 1.0.1.
-Original Message-
From: Rose, Bobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:22 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Bug in iXhash plugin - fixed version available
The old
Is there a way to pull a real time list of blocked emails...or any real time
display at all???
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Blocked-Email-List-tp20838289p20838289.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 04.12.08 09:32, raptor31 wrote:
Is there a way to pull a real time list of blocked emails...or any real
time display at all???
in your mail logs, you can check for what was rejected. What else would you
like to see?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
raptor31 a écrit :
Is there a way to pull a real time list of blocked emails...or any real time
display at all???
SA does not block mail. you need to check tools for the program you use
to call SA (and which may block mail).
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 09:32 -0800, raptor31 wrote:
Is there a way to pull a real time list of blocked emails...or any real time
display at all???
yes.
Naturally it depends on what is blocking mail. SpamAssassin doesn't
block - it only tags. So if you were using something like amavisd-new,
I would like to see just a screen that showed the emails as they come in and
leave spamassassin
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.12.08 09:32, raptor31 wrote:
Is there a way to pull a real time list of blocked emails...or any real
time display at all???
in your mail logs, you can
I used SAVASM...it was just already packaged up and ready to go...just
install VMware and hit play...i tried the commands below...but the file
doesn't exist.
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 09:32 -0800, raptor31 wrote:
Is there a way to pull a real time list of blocked
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 10:05 -0800, raptor31 wrote:
I used SAVASM...it was just already packaged up and ready to go...just
install VMware and hit play...i tried the commands below...but the
file
doesn't exist.
I wouldn't know where they would put the log files, or what blocked mail
would look
-Original Message-
From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 4 December 2008 3:39 p.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: bohunu
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 7:01 pm, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
Hello,
I was using Pyzor until about 2 months ago. It was quite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I'm running spamassassin 3.2.3 on an Debian Etch server. Today I migrated
the mail service from qmail to postfix.
Everything is running, except that spamassassin not working anymore.
Every mail is directly sent to procmail through a
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples from
my mail server:
* PO1786
* PO 42111
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
On 12/04/2008 01:49 Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples from
my mail server:
* PO1786
* PO 42111
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples
from my mail server:
*
fyi.
--- Forwarded Message
Date:Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:41:08 -0800
From:Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Apache Infrastructure [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: svn commit: r722791 -
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
\b matches a zero-length word boundary. This means that one side
is a word character and the other side is not. Word characters
are defined as alphanumeric plus _. So the only option in your
list that would cause a problem is PO12345.
Try
Ray Jette wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good
at regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real
examples from my mail server:
* PO1786
*
Ray Jette wrote:
mouss wrote:
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you
testing
the rule, err,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
Then I need numbers and letters - [0-9a-z]\{1,10\} - I may need need this.
Don't escape the curlies.
Does this need to support alphanumeric POs? The rules provided so far
likely won't do that.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
The following looks like it will work. Does any one see any reasons why this
would not work?
/\bPO ?s?:?#?\d{0,10}?[a-z]{0,5}?/i
The order of your optional bits will be respected, and there's not a v
or apostrophe in there, which was in one of your
Matt Garretson a écrit :
This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
or
Subject =~ /\bPO\W.*\d+/i
Is there a way to tell Spamassassin to whitelist a dynamic list of
IP's in a file? I have have a dynamic list of IP's called ./pop_hosts
that have checked email by pop3 within last 15 minutes and I would
like to white list them all if thats possible. The IP's in the file
are constantly changing
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Matt wrote:
Is there a way to tell Spamassassin to whitelist a dynamic list of
IP's in a file? I have have a dynamic list of IP's called ./pop_hosts
that have checked email by pop3 within last 15 minutes and I would
like to white list them all if thats possible. The IP's
Hi,
Does anyone know if it is possible to retrieve information from any of
theses files below about mails that are classified as spam?
Or in general. I there a way to view statistics from spammassassin?
bayes_seen
bayes_toks
bayes_toks.expire16585
bayes_toks.expire1852
mouss a écrit :
Matt Garretson a écrit :
This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
or
Subject =~ /\bPO\W.*\d+/i
Thanks to John for
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:52:18PM +0100, Jon wrote:
Does anyone know if it is possible to retrieve information from any of
theses files below about mails that are classified as spam?
Or in general. I there a way to view statistics from spammassassin?
bayes_seen
bayes_toks
What kind
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:04 AM
it's WORKING
Well,
it hangs my SA 3.2.4 setup on waiting for a reply from ctyme.ixhash.net .
The strange thing is that it consumes a lot
I think I have it all ready to go. Looking for some volunteers to test
my new email backup service. Contact me privately if you're interested.
I'm looking for people with:
1) No greylisting - unless you exempt *.junkemailfilter.com from your
greylisting. If you do that I want at least one
Bill Landry wrote:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:04 AM
it's WORKING
Well,
it hangs my SA 3.2.4 setup on waiting for a reply from ctyme.ixhash.net .
The strange thing is
Marc Perkel wrote:
Bill Landry wrote:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:04 AM
it's WORKING
Well,
it hangs my SA 3.2.4 setup on waiting for a reply from
RobertH schrieb:
is there anything wrong with still using an older pre 1.5.x version of
iXhash?
is there a problem that makes an upgrade recommended?
OR
is there a problem that forces up to upgrade?
- rh
Short anwer: No. I tried to improve the code by adding new functionailty
but the
Bill Landry schrieb:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:04 AM
it's WORKING
Well,
it hangs my SA 3.2.4 setup on waiting for a reply from ctyme.ixhash.net .
The strange thing is
mouss wrote:
- is it enough to pass few messages? (in short, does manual training
have more weight than automatic awl learning?)
There's no such thing as manual training of the AWL. Actually, there's
no such thing as training for it either.
The AWL averages scores. nothing more,
From: John Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 13:31:05 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Matt wrote:
Is there a way to tell Spamassassin to whitelist a dynamic list of
IP's in a file? I have have a dynamic list of IP's called ./pop_hosts
that have checked
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Jeff Mincy wrote:
Looking at http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3848
o The new keyword ESMTPS indicates the use of ESMTP when STARTTLS
[1] is also successfully negotiated to provide a strong transport
encryption layer.
o The new keyword LMTPS
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, John Hardin wrote:
And I lament that more legitimate MTAs aren't supporting TLS encryption...
:)
...more legitimate *sites*, that is. Like, for instance, mail.apache.org
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
ie: you
can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
expressed it poorly.
I guess as the OP of this thread, my point was that why
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
ie: you
can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
expressed it poorly.
I guess as the OP of this
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
something even more complete. Try feeding the message spamassassin -r
--add-to-blacklist.
Ahhh. I was mistakenly thinking that sa-learn == [ update-bayes
database +
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
To follow-up on this suggestion...
That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
something even more complete. Try feeding the message spamassassin -r
--add-to-blacklist.
It seems (looking at -D output) that
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
To follow-up on this suggestion...
That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
something even more complete. Try feeding the message spamassassin -r
--add-to-blacklist.
It
51 matches
Mail list logo
