Hi everybody,
I'm trying to make SpamAssassin work with ipfw on freebsd 8.0. I've just got
confused with spamd/spamc pair and spamassassin! Are these two the same with
just different modes of running?
I want to forward mails to SpamAssassin using ipfw fw rules and then deny spams
or change
Spamassassin is just a tool to check a message's 'spam score'.
Then you decide the message is spam or not, ie. if the score
is greater than value x the message is considered as spam.
spamassassin.exe is standalone version of SA. Usage:
spamassassin input.eml output.eml
Now you got the
On 20/07/2010, at 19:52, Sara Khanchi wrote:
I'm trying to make SpamAssassin work with ipfw on freebsd 8.0. I've just got
confused with spamd/spamc pair and spamassassin! Are these two the same with
just different modes of running?
I want to forward mails to SpamAssassin using ipfw fw rules
Hello,
please configure your mailer to wrap lines below 80 characters per line.
72 to 75 is usually OK.
Thank you.
On 11.07.10 15:18, Grant Peel wrote:
I have recently build a new server build and am not finding (appears) that
SA is not updating correctly.
Why did you build 3.2.5? And how
On 14.07.10 12:32, Jason Haar wrote:
For some weird reason I seem to get a lot of Chinese spam - and even
with TextCat enabled, SA is unable to recognise it as Chinese (ie I want
to score on X-Spam-Languages:). I've Googled around and it looks like
TextCat ceased development some time ago, so
On 14.07.10 15:42, Emin Akbulut wrote:
I run SA Win32 port 3.3.1 by JAM Software on Windows Server 2008 64 bit.
Spamassassin.exe always calculates the same score, coz User_Prefs file is
under my docs (C:\Users\ea\.spamassassin)
However spamd.exe -which runs as service- calculates the right
P.S: In my case all tests done in same input, but outputs have
different scores.
Does not spamd 3.3.1 (JAM) support logging? I want to log some info...
My recent scores on same input : )
OK
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.7 required=6.3 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
OK
X-Spam-Status: No,
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
lot more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or later one of your customers is going
to call
On 07/20/2010 11:36 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
did you set up ok_languages?
Yup - in general it does work - it's just that textcat doesn't seem to
be able to figure out Chinese from a 5 paragraph email containing
nothing but Chinese and about 5 words of English. I had a similar
problem
From: Emin Akbulut [mailto:eminakbu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:54 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
P.S: In my case all tests done in same input, but outputs have
different scores.
Does not spamd 3.3.1 (JAM) support logging? I want to log some info...
From: Emin Akbulut [mailto:eminakbu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:54 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
P.S: In my case all tests done in same input, but outputs have
different scores.
Does not spamd 3.3.1 (JAM) support logging? I want to log some info...
My recent scores on
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 14:53 +0300, Emin Akbulut wrote:
Does not spamd 3.3.1 (JAM) support logging? I want to log some info...
When run under Linux it logs to /var/log/maillog. Does the DOS/Windows
version write log messages to stderr or does it just suppress them?
My recent scores on same
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 03:22 -0700, Sara Khanchi wrote:
I've just got confused with spamd/spamc pair and spamassassin! Are
these two the same with just different modes of running?
Basically, yes. The client / server solution (spamc and spamd) should be
used instead of the plain spamassassin
On 7/19/2010 8:23 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
On 7/16/2010 2:31 PM, Cliff Hayes wrote:
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
OK I've found the wrong score's log however I'm not
very familiar with SA debug logs, I've added
both correct 18 point and wrong 5.5 point' logs.
I also added processed messages.
http://rapidshare.com/files/407987154/spamd-logs.rar
*
*
http://rapidshare.com/files/407987154/spamd-logs.rar*I used
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 01:39:32PM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
I'll say it again, Marc: you'd get better response from large sites if
you offered source code for a small SMTP daemon that did the connection
analysis you want and sent to you just the offending IP addresses via an
auditable
On 7/20/10 8:53 AM, Dave O'Neill d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 01:39:32PM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
I'll say it again, Marc: you'd get better response from large sites if
you offered source code for a small SMTP daemon that did the connection
analysis you want and
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
Looks nice, but the only report types are IPv4 and IPv6. You may wish to
describe domain-name (uri), domain-name (fcdns) and domain-name (email)
report types, as those may be more applicable to Marc's purposes.
Well, first
On 7/19/2010 3:55 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 2:25 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 12:56 PM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/19/2010 8:43 AM, Brian Godette wrote:
On 7/15/2010 6:55 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hi all,
Few
On 7/20/2010 4:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:25:26 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
It's been our experience that spam-scanning outbound mail causes a
lot more problems than setting up mailserver monitoring and being
responsive to it. Sooner or
You argue about the fficiency of blicking network flow like we do
But beyond argue they are simples facts:
Before I introduce port 25 blocking I had more than 200 feedback loop
complaints daily from differents MSP (Yahoo, AOL, abusix and others).
Since blocking is enabled it I have have less
You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
spamfilter outbound mail. It is the other guy who is arguing that
spamfiltering outbound mail is better than port 25 blocks.
Ted
On 7/20/2010 11:46 AM, Alexandre
Sorry it was not directly for you, but more like a general post.
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 12:01 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt a écrit :
You are mistaken. I'm a proponent of port 25 blocks. What I
am saying is that port 25 blocks work far better than attempting to
spamfilter outbound mail. It
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
point at all unless you configure it to DELETE the outbound mail it
thinks is spam - and if you do that your going to get shot by your users
over the FPs.
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 à 14:40 -0600, LuKreme a écrit :
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
point at all unless you configure it to DELETE the outbound mail it
thinks is spam - and if you
On Jul 20, 2010, at 18:07, Alexandre Chapellon alexandre.chapel...@mana.pf
wrote:
Bouncing spam?? What a good way to become a backscatter source (in
addition to spam)!
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to bounce
internal messages.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Le mardi 20 juillet 2010 ?? 14:40 -0600, LuKreme a ??crit :
On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:16, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Exactly, meaning that if you run SA on outbound mail then there's no
point at all unless you configure it to DELETE
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, LuKreme wrote:
We are talking about Checking OUTBOUND messages. It is perfectly ok to
bounce internal messages.
Caveat: As long as proper care is taken to send the bounce to the
authenticated sender of the mail and NOT just lamely use the 'From'
header! Still prefer an
Hi,
Does SpamAssassin perform tests/scans on attachments?
NOTE: I'm using spamc (client for spamd) to get only the spam score of the
email message. The email message passed to spamc is assembled/prepared on
my own, which is in concert with RFC 822, produced by my web application,
which means
Generally, no. SA skips messages that are larger than a size that you
set in the config file. Most attachments are larger than that size.
Obviously if you have a really small attachment then it will scan it.
The principle of spamming basically is dependent on small messages.
With small
Ted Mittelstaedt-2 wrote:
Generally, no. SA skips messages that are larger than a size that you
set in the config file. Most attachments are larger than that size.
Obviously if you have a really small attachment then it will scan it.
Thanks for that update.
Assuming my use case need to
31 matches
Mail list logo
