-Original Message-
From: Wolfgang Zeikat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 07:22
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ImageInfo plugin for SA
Will that work in SA 3.0.*?
Sorry for first sending that question to you off list, Dallas.
Moses
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 07:26
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: ImageInfo plugin for SA
Dallas,
one question/suggestion/feature request: I found quite a few
GIF images in spam are broken
-Original Message-
From: Donald F. Caruana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 08:51
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: ImageInfo plugin for SA
Sorry if I missed it, but why such a large area for the GIF
size? Or maybe I don't understand how that
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Sherrill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 08:52
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Where do you put new plugins
Sorry to be so lame, but where is the default plugin
directory. I find several (ie lib and blib). Do I
Greetings,
For those of you that dont want the overhead or hassel of installing all
extras to get OCR running, I give you a simpler (maybe less effective)
option.. It basically determines pixel coverage similar to what
eval:html_image_ratio() does, but html_image_ratio() actually reads
height=
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:52 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ImageInfo plugin for SA
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:14:06PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
All those scores in the cf
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:35 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ImageInfo plugin for SA
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:05:52PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
I made some major edits (1/3
-Original Message-
From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:42 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ImageInfo plugin for SA
On Thursday 03 August 2006 16:50, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:38:48AM +0200,
-Original Message-
From: spamassassinuser19 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 08:14
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: SA 3.1.1 and sql user prefs
Thank you for the link to the article.It was very helpful. I
think i understand what is going
-Original Message-
From: spamassassinuser19 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 14:15
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: SA 3.1.1 and sql user prefs
I am running spamassassin 3.1.1 and using sql as the
userprefs file. The system is reading the
-Original Message-
From: Rick Macdougall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 14:18
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Strange problem
Dirk Bonengel wrote:
Hi all,
Dallas, I think the problem isn't the request timing out -
Rick says
'the
-Original Message-
From: Rick Macdougall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 14:42
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Strange problem
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
Both servers have exactly
|| 5;
+ my $timer =
Mail::SpamAssassin::Timeout-new({ secs =
$timeout
});
+ my $err = $time-run_and_catch(sub {
+ $answer =
I assume you mean $timer- (vs $time-) there?
D
-Original Message-
From: Payal Rathod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:34 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: whitelist include file
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:11:33PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
You could use an include, but just put
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 08:09
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Blocking all inline GIF or JPG Images
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
What would I need to do to just outright block all e-mail
that
or maybe M.O. needs to can their email admin for not whitelisting those
all important gap mailers. ;)
From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 09:16
To: Spaml (E-mail); SaTalk (E-mail)
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 14:15
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why does this rule not hit?
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:04:40PM -0400, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Why does this rule:
body
for those that didn't see it, http://slashdot.org/ read Google,
Submission AdSense and NoFollow Letdown. figured I'd toot his horn for
him. :)
was taint.org slashdotted for a bit? I couldn't seem to access it when
the article first appeared. Seems to come up fine now.
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:24 AM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Proposal: First URI black list, how about email
address black lists?
URI based black lists have been extremely effected in
identifying spam.
I
-Original Message-
From: Dallas L. Engelken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:34 AM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: RE: Proposal: First URI black list, how about email
address black lists?
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: Bret Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 08:59
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: So, when do we start handling [dot] in a URI
Seems spammers have taken up to doing what many of us have in
posting e-mail addresses, putting
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:08
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: So, when do we start handling [dot] in a URI
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:58:55AM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
as a quick
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:17
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: So, when do we start handling [dot] in a URI
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:12:40AM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
well, i dont
-Original Message-
From: Bart Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:54 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: So, when do we start handling [dot] in a URI
On 5/12/06, Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote on Fri, 12 May
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:27
To: Bowie Bailey; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week
| Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that!
| {O.O}
|
| I'm sure it can, but I've got
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:44
To: Jay Lee
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
|
| Easier said than done when you have a paying customer who
wants this specific mailing.
|
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 14:12
To: Chris Santerre; 'Matt Kettler'
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACKHere's one that just got
captured.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 14:42
To: Dallas L. Engelken; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Chris and Dallas,
Thank you for pointing this out. I will convey this back to
the customer.
- Original
resend again because SA is bouncing them..
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 14:51
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: ''; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 15:01
To:
Cc: Dallas L. Engelken; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Here's another to look at
wrote:
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 15:29
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
resend again because SA is bouncing them
-Original Message-
From: List Mail User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 6:36 PM
To: Dallas L. Engelken; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
...
What are your thoughts guys
-Original Message-
From: Igor Chudov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 22:22
To: Spamassassin Mailing List
Subject: intercource oriented newsgroups
A few of my clients are moderated newsgroups that have
graphic posts describing certain sexual perversions.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Macdougall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 15:05
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Looking for a STATS program
Benjamin Adams wrote:
what was used for this:
OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE
-Original Message-
From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 15:20
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Looking for a STATS program
Benjamin Adams wrote:
Yea I have that but when I try running saying where my
spamd.log files
is I
-Original Message-
From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 15:20
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Looking for a STATS program
Benjamin Adams wrote:
Yea I have that but when I try running saying where my
spamd.log files
is I
The problem seems to be that rawbody looks at the message one
line at a time. I won't bore you with every way I've
tried to create a rule that spans this line break, but
none of them have worked.
Has anyone enountered/resolved this issue?
stemming from
-Original Message-
From: Jim Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 07:35
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Have I been banned from rulesdujour?
I started using the rulesDuJour for a couple of weeks and
decided to set it up on a cron job. For
Having blackberry mail come through hitting some SA rules that they
didn't use to. They are using a date header now like so...
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:33:06 + GMT
# echo -e Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:33:06 + GMT\n\n | spamc
X-Spam-Report:
* 2.2 INVALID_DATE Invalid Date:
My recommendation is to take this approach Penalize emails with
inline gifs, and penalize them even more if they hit in combination with
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_*.
meta __IMG_ONLY(HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04 || HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08 ||
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12 || HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16 ||
-Original Message-
From: Stewart, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:36
To: 'users@spamassassin.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Commercial SA packages?
John Stewart wrote:
The fact is, I just don't have the time to give SA proper
care and
feeding.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: SpamAssassin
Subject: Re: /etc/shadow access from SA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our intrusion detection software started picking up thousands
-Original Message-
From: Peter P. Benac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dallas,
It does on Solaris. Doesn't do anything other to see if
their is a matching entry in both /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow
and it checks to see if the user is still able to log in.
Linux should actually
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:51
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Re: /etc/shadow access from SA
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:01:31PM -0600, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
Justin, Are you positive? I don't see getpwnam
http://businesgroupny.com
You'll see neat little bulk email tools they use for sending their
phishes
* http://businesgroupny.com/bulk/
* http://businesgroupny.com/index.php - Fi$hY Productions
;)
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 05:14
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 18:24
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: REPOST:Need some help with - EX_IOERR 74
input/output error
- Original Message -
I'm not sure it'll be a parameter
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 22:50
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
Chris Santerre wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
My FPs fall into two
A lot of what I'm seeing is hitting HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 and has 12+ char
gifs. So they have obviously added more text to alter the html to
image ratio.The rule in 70_sare_stocks.cf looks for higher image
ratios,
meta SARE_STOX_IMG_ONLY ( __SHORT_GIF ( HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04 ||
-Original Message-
From: Matthias Fuhrmann
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:50 PM
To: Kevin W. Gagel
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: REPOST:Need some help with - EX_IOERR 74
input/output error
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Kevin W. Gagel
The rules you create from a 1 day old spam corpus will be obsolete the
next day for most of these spammers that use daily uri rotation.
I'd stick to SURBL and URIBL queries if I were you.. But then again,
I'm partial :)
D
From: Chris Santerre
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:58 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: REPOST:Need some help with - EX_IOERR 74 input/output error
Has anyone got any idea's on this? No one responded to my
first
-Original Message-
From: Gene Heskett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:56 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
On Friday 03 February 2006 00:30, jdow wrote:
From: John Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wrong
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:44 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
From: Dallas L. Engelken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Gene Heskett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And if you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:07 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
Dallas Engelken wrote:
Ok, Lets take the following sample data
Email:
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:10 PM
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
# grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |wc -l
Adds to URIBL Black for 2006-02-01 00:00:00 to 2006-02-01 23:59:59
#1 Chris Santerre 25931
Now we know why the ratio is 500:1 ;)
Dallas
From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:35 AM
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:52 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
Does anyone mind if I summarize and post their results on the
SURBL discussion list?
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:16 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
From: Dallas L. Engelken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Chan [mailto
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:45 PM
To: jdow
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
jdow wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kristopher Austin wrote:
RANKRULE NAME
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:03 PM
To: jdow
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
jdow wrote:
From: Dallas Engelken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 07:37
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:55 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:49 PM
To: Chris Lear
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
Chris Lear wrote:
* Jim Maul wrote (11/01/06 17:48):
[...]
i dont have any
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:31 PM
To: mouss
Cc: Jeff Peng; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: URIBLFP? [Was: SA or Commercial AntiSpam products]
mouss wrote:
(top posting because not a reply:)
adding a redirector_pattern will catch this.
redirector_pattern
/^https?:\/\/(?:www\.)?google\.com\/search\?q=site:([A-Za-z0-9\-\.]+)$/I
dbg: uri: parsed uri found,
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:bluevallet.com
dbg: uri: cleaned parsed uri, http://bluevallet.com
dbg: uri: cleaned parsed
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:56 AM
To: SpamAssassin Users; SURBL Discuss
Subject: Google search as spam URI
This drug spam message body seems problematic, since the URI is
google, being used to search for the
-Original Message-
From: Dallas L. Engelken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:30 AM
To: Jeff Chan; SpamAssassin Users; SURBL Discuss
Subject: RE: Google search as spam URI
adding a redirector_pattern will catch this.
redirector_pattern
/^https
-Original Message-
From: List Mail User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Google search as spam URI
...
This drug spam message body seems problematic, since
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:36 AM
To: Dallas L. Engelken; 'Jeff Chan'; 'SpamAssassin Users';
'SURBL Discuss'
Subject: RE: Google search as spam URI
Dallas
Small change required for my to lint cleanly
-Original Message-
From: Patrick von der Hagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Justin Mason
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: strange bug, filling syslog
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
-Original Message-
From: Patrick von der Hagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:59 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: strange bug, filling syslog
userHi all,
I've been surprised by an nagios-alert that my
syslog-partition was running
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 11:54 PM
To: Mark R. London; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Testing for short message?
At 08:47 AM 12/25/2005, Mark R. London wrote:
Has anyone come up with a way to test
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Boyles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:46 PM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Using Dig for RBL lookups.
So far, so good. Everything I'm trying gives me an NXDOMAIN
response, though. Anyone have a couple of IPs that are on
-Original Message-
From: Jon Kvebaek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:04 AM
To: spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Messages without received headers and ALL_TRUSTED
Hi,
we get quite a few messages that have no Received: headers.
These
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:32 AM
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Messages without received headers and ALL_TRUSTED
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
score
-Original Message-
From: Craig McLean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 1:15 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: A thought about phone numbers and URIBLs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey folks, I was having a thought about
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:26 PM
The sa-stats I did (http://www.rulesemporium.com/programs/)
is basically for show rule hitrates..
The name collision is unfortunate, Dallas.
{o.o}
For you maybe... But for
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:47 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Stats question...
Someone posted an update to a stats collecting program, I
think it was this list I saw it on. The post was
-Original Message-
From: Brian Leyton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:33 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Stats question...
Ok, I downloaded 3.05, and tried the sa-stats.pl that comes
with the distribution. Still nothing.
I'm
-Original Message-
From: Noc Phibee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 11:39 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: STats Tools of Rules ?
Hi
do you know if they have a small tools for know the
efficacity of all rules ?
Foir know if i use (and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:35 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: rules and new line
I've got some spam mails that has this kind of pattern
A
Q
s
G
T
Ue
O
I've tried to make a rule
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules and new line
At 08:35 AM 11/22/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got some spam mails that has this
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:05 PM
To: Jeferson Pessoa Santana
Cc: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Re: SpamAssassin: how to generate stats
Jeferson Pessoa Santana wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.1.0
FYI
Just had a report from a user regarding
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblockip=66.249.82.205
64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for xproxy.gmail.com
64.233.185.27 is an mx ( 5 ) for gmail.com
That could be effecting quite a lot of people...
D
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:39 AM
To: Raymond Dijkxhoorn
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: blocked from rulesemporium.com
From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It works just fine here if you use
FYI, the box serving rulesemporium.com will be moving to a new
datacenter this weekend. So the site may be unavailable for parts of
Saturday while DNS propogates I have made DNS TTL changes today to
prepare for it and minimize cache times.
So don't say I didn't warn ya if it doesn't work
May I ask why you are using a hosts file to resolve rulesemporium.com?
Dallas
-Original Message-
From: Ed Kasky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:52 PM
To: Dallas L. Engelken; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rulesemporium.com moving
-Original Message-
From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 2:50 PM
To: Derek Harding
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: GeoCities Link-only spam
On 8/22/2005 3:34 PM, Derek Harding wrote:
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:05
-Original Message-
From: Steve Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:43 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spurious __alarm__ messages in spamd log
Sat Aug 20 00:28:36 2005 [16014] info: spamd: processing
message [EMAIL PROTECTED] for
To make things more complicated, the URIBL ( NOT! SURBL) lookup says.
(parts cut off)
219.144.194.158 NOT Listed on URIBL: NOT Listed on SURBL
158.194.144.219Listed on URIBL black Listed on SURBL details
Lookup: 158.194.144.219.multi.surbl.org Result: Blocked,
-Original Message-
From: Dirk Bonengel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:01 PM
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Phishing IP listed in URIBL and SURBL, but not
triggering URI rules
Dallas (and all the rest),
what
-Original Message-
From: wolfgang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 6:36 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Phishing IP listed in URIBL and SURBL, but not
triggering URI rules
In an older episode (Friday, 12. August 2005 01:18), Dallas
L
]
-Original Message-
From: Dallas L. Engelken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:02 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: generating rule stats from spamd logs
My mistake.. It is fixed, hopefully for good.
v0.9 - http://www.rulesemporium.com/programs
I'm having the same problem. I was having a bit of dialouge
with Dallas
- Glad to see I'm not the only one. This script is great -
can't wait until 1.01 ;)
Matt, he's talking about the distro sa-stats.pl... Look closer at this
sample.
d
= in the result: line for doing statistics
per user/domain... Maybe this is something that has to wait until 3.1
Dallas
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Yette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:21 PM
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Subject: RE: generating rule
BAYES_00 hits 15.27 of spam on yours, the %ofspam on top ham rules and
%ofham on top spam rules must be buggy.
i'm not running that version with the 5th column. It must be buggy.
i play with it after bit.
Dallas
From: Andy Jezierski
-Original Message-
From: Chris Thielen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:02 AM
To: Dallas L. Engelken
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: generating rule stats from spamd logs
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
BAYES_00 hits 15.27 of spam on yours
545 1.221.610.76
6.41
From: Steve Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:44 AM
To: Andy Jezierski
Cc: Dallas L. Engelken
Anybody got a rule that will catch messages that don't have a body?
3.1.0-pre3 has this already...
-
# __MIME_ATTACHMENT defined in 20_html_tests.cf
body __NONEMPTY_BODY/\S/
meta EMPTY_MESSAGE !__MIME_ATTACHMENT !__NONEMPTY_BODY
describe EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears
URIBL tests are still hitting good here.
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
FROM 2005-06-27 03:47:11 TO 2005-06-27 21:28:42
Hrm. Interesting. I turned the debug level up a bit and saw this:
Jun 27 20:59:18 mailgate amavis[11145]: (11145-01) SPAM-TAG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[EMAIL
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
