On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:08 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
They have several of our IP addresses listed and delisting
doesn't seem to work. We're a spam filtering company (Junk Email Filter)
and if we fail to block a spam it can appear we are the source.
Uh, Marc, if the spam comes out
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Yes, here is an example of a message rated as spam:
X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 0.]
OK, so you've got a BAYES_99 on that message, which is a pretty
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
1) Does it matter that I have autolearn turned off in spamassassin
conf filt 'local.cf' while doing my sandbox work
No, it doesn't. In fact it's probably better that way because SA
won't waste time updating the bayes
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
I've been trying to `teach' SA to spam from ham in my mail system.
I've made it thru two main learning sessions where I ran around 450
msgs (each time) thru sa-learn spam/ham and yet SA is still incapable
of getting it
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful-part-5/
We have a couple of mail servers running SpamAssassin. One is stock
CentOS5 and therefore running SA 3.2.4. The other is a test platform
running SA 3.3.1 (installed from rpmforge in case that matters). Both
have the latest sa-update configurations for their respective
versions.
On both hosts,
Coincidental to the recent thread on SPF comes this from Terry Zink:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2010/02/23/some-stats-and-figures-on-dkim-and-spf.aspx
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
Here is a site that gives you your IP address and lets you check it against
DNSBLs:
http://cqcounter.com/rbl_check/
Just as a word of warning, that site is still checking
blacklist.spambag.org, which has been offline
On RedHat systems, at least, the init.d script that runs spamd is
named spamassassin. So possibly what was meant here was
service spamassassin start
service spamassassin stop
On Nov 13, 2007 3:32 AM, Michael Scheidell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you folks trap these mails , And how do we report
abuse to google ( if they really bother )
You can't. Google ignores complaints, and email to @googlepages.com
will bounce in 5 days due to their refusal to even
On Oct 30, 2007 12:27 PM, Joseph Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notice the all-lower-case field names, which do not conform to the
RFC 2822 field names that they almost match. That is, a from:
header is not the same as a From: header!
It's *supposed* to be the same. RFC *822 does not
On 10/17/07, Randal, Phil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hyperbole?
Well, let's take a look at the figures on my mail relay boxes
Not to single out Phil, but so far everyone is quoting (among other
things) the percentage of mail that they reject out of hand. You're
all 100% confident that none of
On 10/17/07, Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might be
interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has now
reached being 95% of all email.
This is hyperbole.
What it really means is that 95% of the mail processed by
On 9/13/07, Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if anyone feels like trying it out to see if they can make an
auto-shortcircuiting plugin which outperforms base SpamAssassin over a
mixed corpus of 50:50 nonspam and spam, go for it ;)
I dunno about your mail, but if it outperformed base SA
On 7/25/07, Jerry Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It also is trying to claim to come from me, I don't have a POST or
OFFICE address here.
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's almost certainly the case that your own mail server did that.
The originating
If you read JM's Planet Antispam, you know this already, but:
http://www.dnsbl.com/2007/06/status-of-dnsbltqmcubecom-abandoned.html
On 7/1/07, dougp23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do I go about blocking the mailing list? here are some headers from a
recent message: (It seems everyone on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is getting this
junk).
Prompted by Doug but directed to no one in particular:
Please don't use things like
On 6/29/07, Tom Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thought I had, and have been working on for a while, is changing
how the scoring is done. Rather than making Bayes a part of the
scoring process, make the scoring process a part of the Bayes
statistical Engine. As an example you would
On 6/16/07, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using my new ideas here's my raw blacklist file. It has about 80k IP
addresses and is updated every 10 minutes.
http://iplist.junkemailfilter.com/black.txt
Just glancing through the list and reversing an IP address whose first
two quads I
On 5/13/07, Gregory P. Ennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SPF seems very interesting. Does spamAssassin automatically use an SPF
record if it exists?
There's a plugin.
Do I set up an SPF record with whoever manages my MX DNS record?
Yes. It's a TXT record. Some DNS hosting companies will
On 4/13/07, Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, I *think* I have that X-Originating-Ip: 193.93.97.195 in my .procmailrc,
but it didn't fire. Odd...
Is that rule before or after the point at which you run the message
through spamassassin?
If after, it probably ddin't fire because
On 4/13/07, Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The trail starts at localhost! HTF did they do that?
You're looking at the header of the wrapper message created by
spamassassin, not at the header of the actual spam (which will be
inside a message/rfc822 body part of the message created by
On 4/3/07, JOYDEEP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can I configure spamassassin to look after the spam and ham folder
of all the cyrus mail boxes,
so that all the users has their own spamassasin trainer ? it is
something like white box and black box per user
could any one kindly suggest me how to
On 3/10/07, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some reason when this happens fetchmail will not delete the message after
downloading it therefore it just sits there and get downloaded over and over
again and prevents othere mail after it from being downloaded. Could this be
a) a fetchmail
On 3/3/07, Don Ireland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every email list I've ever subscribed to has had something in the
subject line (usually in square brackets) to identify 1) that it is a
mailing list and 2) what list it is.
Why doesn't this list have something similar?
Because it's a really
A technical newsletter about transistors contains the introductory paragraph
Use of gallium nitride (GaN) power transistors in microwave
applications is expected to increase significantly with recent
technology improvements, but lateral double diffuse metal oxide
semiconductor (LDMOS)
On 2/16/07, Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, any suggestions from outside the dev team? Anyone got good ideas
for new SpamAssassin features that would be good to pay someone to work on
for 3 months?
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3785
On 2/7/07, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:04:43PM +, Michael Bartlett wrote:
I can't believe the yum package is so out of date, am I missing something?
You're running Fedora Core 4 (hey, me too,) which is generally out of date at
this point. I'd
On 1/23/07, R Lists06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Redhat or CentOS machines would that be under SPAMDOPTIONS ?
Using the RPM install of spamassassin from either the CentOS project
or rpmforge, you make changes to the spamd command line in
/etc/sysconfig/spamassassin, and yes, you place those
On 1/10/07, D Ivago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:0:
* ^Subject:.*\[SPAM]\
/dev/null
Square brackets have special meaning: [SPAM] is a character class
matching one of any of the characters S, P, A, or M. What you need
is:
:0
* ^Subject:.*\\[SPAM\]
/dev/null
However, I'd not recommend that.
On 12/19/06, Michael Scheidell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed an email from salesforce has a 'user tracking' web bug in it
but it isn't currently detected by SA or SARES
Why do you want to consider this a spam sign? I'm just curious.
On 12/20/06, Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you want to consider this a spam sign? I'm just curious.
Bugs in mail messages are generally a suspicious circumstance, and probably
good for a fractional point all by themselves. In general any tracking that
will auto-identify
On 12/18/06, Christian Eichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
server:~# perl -MCPAN -e 'install LWP::UserAgent'
Can't locate object method install via package LWP::UserAgent at -e
line 1.
# perl -MCPAN -e shell
cpan install LWP::UserAgent
Maybe the name of that config option should be changed to truthful_networks.
On 12/1/06, Chris Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, every full stop in the html is
represented as #46; for some reason.
In SMTP, a dot all by itself on a line is interpreted as the end of
the message. The SMTP client is supposed to double any such dot that
is truly present in the message
On 11/16/06, Jon Trulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, that has not been my experience at all... Bayes (99) is
still catching every one for me.
In this instance, SpamAssassin is running after POP download from
gmail, so I'm only seeing the samples that have already made it
It looks to me as if the recent spate of pump'n'dump spams are
deliberately crafted to avoid being Bayes-learned by spamassassin. In
spite of all having different subject lines and senders and other
minor differences, once you've learned one of them sa-learn ignores
all the rest -- and they all
On 9/6/06, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The RPM installs do not seem to include the tools that you get with
the CPAN install.
The rpmforge project packages the tools as a separate RPM, named,
surprisingly enough, spamassassin-tools.
On 9/6/06, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The rpmforge project packages the tools as a separate RPM, named,
surprisingly enough, spamassassin-tools.
And then one distro spamassassin-tools was no longer present.
I'm not sure what you mean. yum list
On 8/24/06, D. J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm expecting these type of strings for sure:
cat
dog
cat dog
dog cat
But I may get something like this too:
cat cat dog
dog dog
Essentially I want it to match if anything other than cat or dog is in the
string.
That constraint means you have to
On 8/2/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's what I've written so far. Deadline is today. Still working on it.
http://wiki.ctyme.com/index.php/UN_Spam_Paper
Rather than extend POP/IMAP to send mail, which quite frankly will
never happen (contact the author of the IMAP protocol, Mark
On 8/2/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
doesn't require a separate connection on a separate port. Why use 2
protocols when you can use one?
Indeed, why don't we just close all ports except 80 and layer
everything atop HTTP?
For heavens sake, Marc. This debate about using IMAP/POP
On 7/16/06, John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The comment was off-hand and not researched. One of my earliest
ISPs recommended Spamassassin when it was just a bunch of scripts
written by some woman who's name escapes me.
I suspect you're thinking of SpamBouncer. Catherine A. Hampton.
On 7/12/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Catchy subject line eh?
What you really mean is the best way to use SpamAssassin is as an
analysis tool.
Which of course is what the best way to use it always was. You're
just abstracting the analysis rather than applying it directly.
The
On 7/12/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
There's been a fellow over on the procmail list claiming for well over
a year now that he can get better accuracy than SA through message
header analysis alone
His claim might well be true.
Oh, I have no doubt that he's
On 7/11/06, Nicholas Payne-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know a good way to script sa-learn to daily check on junk
e-mail folders?
I use logrotate because it handles automatically removing or renaming
the files after learning, but I don't use maildir-format folders so I
can't
On 7/9/06, Geoff Soper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apologies, I've little idea of what is traditional and didn't realise my
situation was unusual!
I didn't say it was unusual ... it's just not the assumed default
state of affairs.
I mean all users should have the same rules and spam threshold,
On 7/8/06, Geoff Soper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.qmail contains the lines:
| true
./Maildir/
Caveat: I don't use qmail, and don't even particularly like qmail, so
what I'm about to say are really educated guesses rather than
definitive answers.
which I've altered to:
| true
|
On 7/8/06, Geoff Soper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
I think I need to specify the .procmailrc as the .procmailrc file is per
e-mail address, not per user or even system-wide
I think we've just uncovered a crucial bit of missing information.
You're apparently running procmail
On 7/5/06, Burton Windle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know of a vendor that sells boxes with SpamAssassin
pre-installed, with a pretty GUI with quarantine ability? (My company
won't allow home-brewed solutions, as they want a vendor to call if I get
hit by a spam bus).
It's not
On 7/5/06, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need DROPPRIVS=yes somewhere near the front of your .procmailrc.
No, you don't. By the time the .procmailrc is read, privileges have
already been dropped. The only place you need DROPPRIVS=yes is in
/etc/procmailrc in the event that you want to
On 7/3/06, Kaushal Shriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have spamassassin-3.0.4-1.el4 installed by default in RHEL4 Linux
There have been updates since then. Current is
spamassassin-3.0.6-1.el4 -- but note that I recently reported that
spamd in that package has a problem with
On 7/3/06, Kaushal Shriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the quick turnaround. I installed the latest spamassassin
version for RHEL4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] kaushal]# rpm -qa | grep spam
spamass-milter-0.3.0-1.2.el4.rf
spamassassin-3.1.3-1
Where did you get that spamassassin RPM?
On 7/3/06, Kaushal Shriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did what you said exactly and its up and running,
How do i test all this configurations for SPAM
sendmail YourLocalEmailAddress
/usr/share/doc/spamassassin-3.1.3/sample-spam.txt
On 7/2/06, martin f krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On mail systems with virtual and local users, it's not easily
possible to run per-user spamc with user configuration.
I run two copies of spamd with different -p port options, and point
the virtual users' spamc at the port corresponding to
On 7/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not 100% positive this is even a SA issue but it is driving me up the wall.
Some mailings are having this added right after the
SA report. It usually isn't an issue except that some user fetch their mail
from Exchange and these mailings are
On 6/30/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who likes this idea?
Evidently habeas.com does, as that's now their business model. Also
Bonded Sender (I think they changed the name recently, but I forget to
what). And I believe the ISIPP maintains several such lists. Do a
Google on
On 6/30/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I see now that you want to unconditionally trust the MSA *and* all
hosts after it. Which is reasonable if the MSA is just an MSA. For
whatever reason you don't want to rely on auth tokens, etc. Seems
reasonable to me.
That would
We recently installed a new CentOS4 server, which comes with SA 3.0.6
prepackaged, to serve as our local mail store (runs sendmail,
clamassassin, spamd, and an imap server). The perl version is 5.8.5,
and it's an x86_64 platform.
Since migrating our users to this machine we frequently have spam
On 6/30/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah - but what I'm thinking of is something that is automatic and
reputation based rather that paying someone to certify you. In other
words your server get whitelisted because you never send spam.
Paid or otherwise, how do you get on the list
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not trusted?
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
Ah, good. That's as I expected. (So why doesn't SA
No one has any comments at all?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jun 23, 2006 10:49 PM
Subject: Not just use_bayes_rules 0
To: Spamassassin Users List users@spamassassin.apache.org
I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting something else
The short of it is that I can't get unwhitelist_from_rcvd to
unwhitelist anything.
Here's the situation: We have a brand-new machine that's going to be
swapped in as our mail server. We're trying to test everything
thoroughly before we switch over to it. To avoid any loss of mail, I
have a
On 6/23/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you read the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf perldoc?
Yes ... so what you're saying is, previously used in means written
in the config file entry not used in spamassassin when matching.
The phrase the address is what threw me; the strings in
On 6/23/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well you could s/address/address pattern/.
I could, but plainly what I did was s/used in/used in processing/,
because it seemed a whole lot more intuitive for it to function that
way. Ah, well.
This will probably change in a future
On 5/28/06, Phil (Sphinx) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really don't understand.
I haven't attempted to figure out what the SARE rule is doing, I'm afraid.
Do you think I should ask the exim-users list ?
If the goal is to limit the volume of mail that any particular user
can cause to be
A while ago, I asked about updating the AWL when using spamd
--virtual-config-dir. The discussion got sidetracked onto the topic
of the obsolete -a option and the AWL plugin, and consequently my
original question never got a satisfactory answer. Here it is again:
On 4/26/06, Bart Schaefer
Bayes is only as accurate as its trainer(s).
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2006/05/theres-one-born-every-minute-spam-and.html
I think there's some kind of conflict between sa-update and
RulesDuJour that has borked my spamassassin installation, but I can't
figure out how.
This morning after RDJ restarted spamd, spamc started returning
messages with ONLY the spamassassin version header added, not the
score report.
On 5/12/06, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jdow And you propose we do what instead?
Look for other characteristics of the messages that could be filtered.
I haven't seen any of these spams, so I don' t know what those might
be, but this can hardly be the *only* thing the spammer is doing.
On 5/13/06, Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there's some kind of conflict between sa-update and
RulesDuJour that has borked my spamassassin installation, but I can't
figure out how.
Apparently the conflict is only that RDJ restarts spamd automatically,
but sa-update does
On 5/13/06, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:57:11AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
Well, guess what. sa-update creates the
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.001001 directory if it does not exist, rather
than finding the directory that does exist and using that. I
On 5/13/06, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not empty if the download is successful. I believe there's a ticket
about changing the behavior so an empty directory isn't left behind if the
first attempt to do an update fails.
Sounds good.
In that case I would argue that either
On 5/12/06, Bret Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems spammers have taken up to doing what many of us have in posting
e-mail addresses, putting [dot] instead of the . in the URL and telling
people to replace it
Gosh, exactly what regular people have been doing on web sites and
in news/list
On 5/12/06, Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote on Fri, 12 May 2006 07:34:05 -0700:
So now that the spammers are using our own defenses against us, you
suggest that we should invent the technology to defeat those defenses?
What's there to invent? The point
Incidentally, the FAQ answer for HowScoresAreAssigned on the SA wiki
is out of date.
On 5/1/06, Jeff Portwine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried ripmime, and it does extract the attachments but it throws away all
of the header information and gives me only the attachment by itself.
I wrote an extractor in procmail for simple (as in, it doesn't handle
nested structure well) MIME
On 4/29/06, List Mail User [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While SA is quite robust largely because of the design feature that
no single reason/cause/rule should by itself mark a message as spam, I have
to guess that the FP rate that the majority of users see for BAYES_99 is far
below 1%.
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me,
start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It
assigned the original score based on real-world data.
Did it? I thought the BAYES_* scores have been
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules,
particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a score of
1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check run. The devs jacked it up to 3.50.
That does make me wonder if:
1) When
The largest number of spam messages currently getting through SA at my
site are short text-only spams with subject Re: good followed by an
obfuscated drug name (so badly mangled as to be unrecognizable in many
cases). The body contains a gappy-text list of several other kinds of
equally
On 4/28/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would make a subject Re: good rule that scores just high enough to push
it to the spam level.
They're only scoring about 3.3, and I'm reluctant to make Re: good
worth 2 points all by itself. That'd be worse than increasing the
spamcop score.
A
On 4/26/06, Rosenbaum, Larry M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Bart Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
(Someone remind me why the spamd option to disable the auto-whitelist
was dropped?)
It hasn't been dropped; they just moved the documentation into
Plugin/AWL.pm.
Ah, right, duh
On 2/23/06, Peter P. Benac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Get enough of those TOS messages in one day and they will still block you
IP address and any IP address that you have assigned to you.
FUD. They don't block multiple IPs at once as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, they have already announced
On 9/16/05, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are better off to use a normal SpamAssassin meta rule.
How so? SA doesn't know how to interpret not to me (unless I write
a plugin) -- it has no built-in knowledge of, for example, all
possible sendmail aliases for my personal account -- and
On 9/16/05, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes indeedy. And I've been looking at Bayes scores here just a wee bit.
BAYES_99 just does not hit on ham and hits on high percentages of spam.
Even BAYES_95 does not hit ham. I go down to BAYES_80 before I hit 0.05
percent of ham.
During a two-week
The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
... and on top of that, they spammed our abuse address.
(Links to spammer site deleted.)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:45:40 +0500
From: Nadia Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: abuse
Subject:
On 9/7/05, Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet?
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to have to
try to track back through 3 weeks of deleted mail to find the original
posting. Especially since I don't remember who posted
On 5/19/05, Ben Wylie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
debug: refresh: 3392 refresh F:/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1/SPAMAS~1/bayes.lock
[...]
debug: expired old Bayes database entries in 1533 seconds: 485101 entries
No real help here, but another data point:
I've been seeing occasional problems on my Linux
On 5/15/05, Raymond Dijkxhoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://mailscanner.prolocation.net/german.cf
You've got a bit of duplication in there (rules 02 and 22 are the
same, as are 04 and 26).
On 5/6/05, List Mail User [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, there is an unfortunate exception provided by Sec 3.17
which allows Transactional or relationship message- and in particular
clause A.iii.I specifically allows notification concerning a change in
the terms or features of. This
On 5/4/05, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's great.. I was trying to think up a good scenario for that
acronym, but couldn't.
Obviously it's the
Automated Spam Sorting Average Scoring System Involving Ninjas
On Mar 31, 2005 5:46 PM, AltGrendel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
The problem is, it seems that sa-learn is ignoring the -u / --user= flag.
sa-learn uses the userid of the user that calls it. Period.
Then why does man sa-learn show a -u flag:
Is this obsolete?
It's not
First, tell me if there's anything wrong with this summary:
1. A message arrives and is passed to spamassassin and/or spamc+spamd.
2. The score for that message is computed.
3. The AWL score for that sender is updated.
4. The message was mis-classified, so after delivery the user feeds
the
It looks as if /usr/bin/spamassassin is being executed by the shell,
attempting to interpret perl as shell commands. This probably means
that your upgrade changed the path to the perl executable, so the #!
line at the top of /usr/bin/spamassassin is no longer pointing to the
right thing, but it
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:36:25 -0800, Bart Schaefer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Menno van Bennekom wrote:
Sorry, that was mis-attibuted. I meant to trim that line.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:27:38 -, bubba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to install Spamassassin 3 on a Linux box w/Ensim control panel
installed
Meaning you're trying to install it through the control panel rather
than using a real login shell? Or only meaning that you're using
Ensim to
The URIBL_* tests are not concerned with where the mail is from;
they're examining the message *body* to see if it contains links to
websites that are commonly advertised in spam. If you remove the
entire message body as private content when posting the sample to
the list, you prevent anyone from
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:21:59 -0700, Jeff Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63?
Version 3 stops different spam than 2.63, in my experience so far.
E.g. it's better at catching the drug spam but not as good at the
earn cash for making phone
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
