I've used SA/spamd.exe for a while because it calculates very high scores on
spams.
-I thought-
Then spams have appeared in people's inboxes and I needed to examine.
I've used another batch file to log spamd spam scores.
The commandline is:
C:\NET\SpamAssassinWin32-EX\winspamc.exe
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
Check your logs.
spamd likely logged the failure. And btw, spamc also logs in some cases,
like refused connection attempts to spamd. You will find your previous
attempts without spamd running being logged.
Thanks. That solved my problem. It has thrown the
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
Check your logs.
spamd likely logged the failure. And btw, spamc also logs in some cases,
like refused connection attempts to spamd. You will find your previous
attempts without spamd running being logged.
For my email message spamc -c
Emin Akbulut wrote:
I've used SA/spamd.exe for a while because it calculates very high scores
on
spams.
-I thought-
Then spams have appeared in people's inboxes and I needed to examine.
I've used another batch file to log spamd spam scores.
The commandline is:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:39 -0700, Gnanam wrote:
What does . 2 mean in the 7th line above?
Its a summary result: '.' means not spam. SA replaces '.' with 'Y' if it
is spam. The number is the score truncated to an integer.
Martin
Martin Gregorie-2 wrote:
Its a summary result: '.' means not spam. SA replaces '.' with 'Y' if it
is spam. The number is the score truncated to an integer.
Thanks for that update.
I've another question with spamc. The spamc option -s max_size,
--max-size=max_size in man spamc says:
The
Gnanam wrote:
The maximum message size is 256 MB.
So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
--
View this message in context:
El 13/07/10 17:22, Giampaolo Tomassoni escribió:
I don't think that's going to help - it's not going to tell us why
it's blacklisted.
Also I suspect those headers aren't added by SA alone. AFAIK
BLACKLISTED isn't added by SA like that - blacklist rule should show up
in tests=[], which is
Daniel Lemke wrote:
Gnanam wrote:
The maximum message size is 256 MB.
So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
Reason I'm asking this is that
Gnanam wrote:
Daniel Lemke wrote:
Gnanam wrote:
The maximum message size is 256 MB.
So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
Reason
Daniel Lemke wrote:
I think we live in some sort of parallel universes ;)
Beside several other reasons why it would be totally insane sending an
email of that size, it's nothing you need SpamAssassin to check for
because it's definitely no spam. If you ever get a spam message of that
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 04:18 -0700, Gnanam wrote:
Daniel Lemke wrote:
I think we live in some sort of parallel universes ;)
Beside several other reasons why it would be totally insane sending an
email of that size, it's nothing you need SpamAssassin to check for
because it's
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 03:40 -0700, Gnanam wrote:
Daniel Lemke wrote:
The maximum message size is 256 MB.
So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested with
SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Gnanam wrote:
Daniel Lemke wrote:
Gnanam wrote:
The maximum message size is 256 MB.
So, email messages that are greater than 256 MB can never be tested
with SA? Or is there any tweaks to get around this?
You need to scan mails that are greater than 256MB?!
Reason
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Emin Akbulut wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=24.4 required=6.3
-Original Message-
From: Charles Gregory
Now if I have to GUESS on insufficient data, I would suspect that the 'port'
of
spamd to Windows(?) does not properly tidy up its children when finished.
The fact that it crashes certainly points in this direction.
May I presume that you
In my first post, SA addition to message is included.
I am including all header lines this time; I noticed SA has added first
lines in one result,
and has added lines somewhere in the middle in other result. :P
I've restarted spamd after test # 1.
TEST1.TXT: It takes less than 2 seconds
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:11 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
Now if I have to GUESS on insufficient data, I would suspect that the
'port' of spamd to Windows(?) does not properly tidy up its children when
finished. The fact that it crashes certainly points in this direction.
May I presume that
I've stopped the mail server MTA during I was testing, so spamd
has checked only one message at same time.
It looks totaly random : )
Is the only difference between spamassassin.exe spamd.exe
their very own User_Prefs config files?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Martin Gregorie
On 16.7.2010 4:04, Peter Lowish wrote:
I am wondering if someone has a rule to deal with the current spam being
sent with just a small png attachment the name of which changes
There is no text in the email, just the attachment – the subject line is
always different
header
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 18:07 +0300, Emin Akbulut wrote:
I've stopped the mail server MTA during I was testing, so spamd
has checked only one message at same time.
It looks totaly random : )
Is the only difference between spamassassin.exe spamd.exe
their very own User_Prefs config
Hello,
Our webmail server is on the same server as sendmail and spamassassin.
I would like to filter outbound webmail but can't because the most recent
versions of spamassassin have 127.0.0.1 trusted by default.
How can I override this? Or is that a bad idea for other reasons?
Thanks in
On fre 16 jul 2010 20:31:21 CEST, Cliff Hayes wrote
How can I override this? Or is that a bad idea for other reasons?
score all_trusted 0.01
score no_relays 0.01
but as i can see you use mimedefang with have independice networking
setup for what not to scan
if its sent to mimedefang its
I knew what you mentioned, I mean do they use same engine, algorithm,
you name it... I think that If both use same Perl code then
the only remaining diffrence is User_Prefs like things...
BTW, I want to thank you all who spent time and answered us here,
passionately : ) I felt I'm not alone
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
They advertise romantic encounters with people born prior to 50 years
ago, small increment auxions, ability to borrow money using house as
collateral, and other scams. Examples are here:
Block? In your MTA. Reject them based on the connecting IP.
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 14:07 -0500, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
I am being hit pretty badly and feel annoyed.
How can I write a rule to
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 21:50 +0300, Emin Akbulut wrote:
I knew what you mentioned, I mean do they use same engine,
algorithm, you name it...
That's a developer question, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't. The
Linux spamd executable is just a Perl script with the usual executable
script's first
On 16/07/10 20:07, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
They advertise romantic encounters with people born prior to 50 years
ago, small increment auxions, ability to borrow money using house as
collateral,
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
Does UBuntu use 'iptables' firewall? Throw it in there, and
forget even the wasted initial SMTP connections.
- C
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Igor Chudov wrote:
I receive a large number of spams from network IPs belonging to
SharkTech, 70.39.69.99 or so and so on.
Does UBuntu use 'iptables' firewall? Throw it in there, and
forget even the wasted initial SMTP
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
Bottom line: Keep your max size limit sane. No kidding.
Thank you very much for your valuable comment/recommendation on this. That
makes sense.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/spamc-client-always-returning-0-0-tp29173280p29189631.html
Thank you all experts for your valuable ideas/opinions on this topic.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Stability-of-spamassassin-command-line-tool-tp29171831p29189632.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
32 matches
Mail list logo
