Justin Mason wrote:
John D. Hardin writes:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
rules that actually hit and affect the score is rather small. The
Clay Davis wrote:
I've see several people write this. Can someone point me to some debate
I can review? It seems to me that if you set the autolearn threshold
fairly high and keep any eye on your bayes scoring, it would be a good
thing.
Thanks,
Clay
Joe Zitnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/2007
Michael Martinell wrote:
My SpamAssassin is able to start – no idea why, whoever it does not
appear to know what thresholds to use:
*Received:* (qmail 25671 invoked by uid 1010); 18 Sep 2007 11:59:35 -0500
*Received:* from 64.233.182.188 by mail (envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Messaggio originale-
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marc Perkel writes:
Who finds this concept interesting?
SPAM-L. This is OT for this list.
Right, Justin, but I see that threads about general
Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote:
For so far I know it isn't possible to have a TTL that is to low (if I
may believe the RFC files). It is also impossible to have to many
A-records. With both facts in mind I would suggest that you find an
other method off detecting SPAM.
Most SA rules
NetComrade wrote:
We have whitelisted our domain, but now we have spam coming from users that
claim they're in our domain.
What's the best way to fight it?
You REALLY dont want to whitelist your own domain. Your seeing why
right now. Use SPF? or perhaps a whitelist rule thats less prone
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 30.07.07 13:25, Spamassassin List wrote:
Any idea for qmail?
if you excuse a big of irony, I'd say: drop it. There are many better
MTA's than qmail. There's imho much less worse solutions...
According to who, you?
He asked for a solution for qmail. If you
John Rudd wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote:
As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not
really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which
only leaves them being useful for attacks of one form or another.
some
Per Jessen wrote:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104STORY=/www/story/07-17-2007/0004626829EDATE=
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Thats retarded. Might as well say, Uplugging my mail server from the
internet is the best method because I received 0 spam since I did it!
Challenge
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:03:07AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
I'll bring this up again: coral.
Is there some reason pointing everyone at the coral cache of the
website won't work? Granted, coral is also intended for large files,
but it is distributed and is almost
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Server .116
The email attached has been identified by one of our team as legitimate but
unfortunately was incorrectly tagged as SPAM.
The email address has been whitelisted to ensure this will not happen again and
we are currently looking into the reasons why this
guenther wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 17:45 +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Anyone else getting 404 errors from RDJ lately?
Yes, this topic came up just a few hours ago. Probably a dDOS attack.
Please disable all RDJ till further notice.
guenther
I would imagine this is related to
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:02 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: 404 while getting RDJ updates?
guenther wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 17:45 +0200, Anders Norrbring
Duane Hill wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Abba Communications wrote:
Since the introduction of SA v3.2.0, bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam
appears to be -1.0.
from Duane
Duane and others
With all sincere and due respect to the DEV's and their excellent hard
work...
I understand it
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, J. wrote:
I didn't realize that most people are denying smtp connections for
bad addresses. That's great that this is possible. So most of the
people on this list reject connections that are for bad addresses?
That's great. I think that would cut down
R Lists06 wrote:
Are you sure of this? Have you also trained these ham messages to
counter this effect? Not too long ago we were in the same situation.
I have autolearn enabled but I have adjusted the thresholds to avoid
This is quite possible. I have heard other stories of people using
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam folders and they get learned. But the text
Marc Perkel wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam
Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris wrote:
I'm running Mandrake 10.1, in order to make sure my system switched to DST on
March 11th I downloaded and installed an upgrade to the timezone file. After
running it I ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# zdump -v /etc/localtime | grep 2007
/etc/localtime Sun Mar 11
Starckjohann, Ove wrote:
Hi!
What line may i add in
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
to archive all mails that are checked by spamd ???
Ove
what makes you think that you could even put something in local.cf that
would do that? SA does not archive anything.
-Jim
Starckjohann, Ove wrote:
I know !
But back to technic: do you know a suitable way, HOW to archive mails that are
scanned by spamd ?
Perhaps with whatever is calling spamassassin? I use qmail-scanner.
There are so many options i couldnt even begin to mention them.
-Jim
Starckjohann, Ove wrote:
Hi!
I'm not calling spamassassin from the local machine but spamd from a remote machine via
a closed source-software which acts as spamc.
Ove Starckjohann
This does not matter. This question has nothing to do with SA. SA can
not/should not archive anything. It
Starckjohann, Ove wrote:
Hi !
the programm acting as spamc is called NoSpamProxy.
http://www.nospamproxy.com/
And my thoughts were that it may be possible to archive the mail that is
supplied to spamd.
Because the spamd get's the whole mail, analyzes it and reports back the
spam-score to the
David Goldsmith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is how this message scored:
X-Spam-DCC: PacNet-SG: iceman11.giac.net 1358; Body=65 Fuz1=65 Fuz2=51
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on iceman11.giac.net
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No,
David Goldsmith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Maul wrote:
David Goldsmith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is how this message scored:
X-Spam-DCC: PacNet-SG: iceman11.giac.net 1358; Body=65 Fuz1=65 Fuz2=51
X-Spam-Checker-Version
David Goldsmith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Setup: SA 3.1.8, Pyzor, Razor, DCC, iXhash
Botnet, FuzzyOCR 3.5.1, SARE rules, some misc rules
This message got 0 points. Does it score over 5 for anyone?
http://members.cox.net/dgoldsmi/spam/lowscore01.txt
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Maul wrote:
David Goldsmith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Setup:SA 3.1.8, Pyzor, Razor, DCC, iXhash
Botnet, FuzzyOCR 3.5.1, SARE rules, some misc rules
This message got 0 points. Does
snowcrash+spamassassin wrote:
following the numerous questions on list, i've gathered that fuzzyocr
is rather popular -- we use it, too.
i've not noticed recent bug-fixing, src dev (~ 1 month), or comments
here, from the dev.
just wondering -- is the proj still alive? dev vacation, maybe? or,
Jack Gostl wrote:
Well... I'm convinced. I turned off autolearn a week ago, and things
have never been smoother. Its a shame really, that's a nice feature, but
for some reason it waters down the Bayes resolution until its almost
useless.
Most likely because the autolearn thresholds are too
Stéphane LEPREVOST wrote:
We are actually checking the configuration of our SA installation (SA
3.1.7 + qmail + qmail-scanner 1.25st + clamav running on SLES *) and
just saw a very weird thing :
despite we don't have any 'trusted_networks' line in our local.cf file,
more than 50 000 received
Evan Platt wrote:
At 10:42 AM 2/7/2007, nh2 wrote:
Hello,
I am new to spamassassin and have installed it on a Suse 9.3 system with
qmail.
If my assassin detects spam, it adds *SPAM* to the subject.
How can I tell my server that such marked mails shall not be delivered
(deleted or
Andy Figueroa wrote:
As an occasional, long-term Thunderbird user, and using a reasonably
current version, 1.5.0.9, TB doesn't even have a built-in show header
feature. It can be added with a buggy extension called View Headers
Toggle Button, which doesn't show long lines without scrolling
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Rich Shepard wrote:
Where do I put this file so it's seen and used by SpamAssassin?
Nevermind. I put it in /usr/share/spamassassin/ with all the other .cf
files.
Rich
nooo
Those are the DEFAULT rules. Do not add/remove/modify anything in
Drew Burchett wrote:
Well, I certainly don't mean to be argumentative about this, but over
the weekend, I had to set USER_IN_WHITELIST score to 0 due to the number
of false hits it was receiving. Seeing as I am the only one here who
has the ability to add and remove from whitelists or
dan li wrote:
Hello. I am wondering if the Box Trapper is a part of spam assasain? If
so, I am hoping some of you can give me the correct lines for the
addresses I want to whitelist by using wildcard expressions.
Boxtrapper appears to be part of (or an add on to) cpanel. It is not
related
Dave Koontz wrote:
I guess milage varies. Auto-Learn has been a life saver for us and has
drastically reduced false postives we used to get with emails to our
College's Health Care Research departments. We pass all local user email
through SA as well, so this really helps the system learn
ToTheCenter.com wrote:
I now am left with more understanding and more questions!
1) Some emails come through twice. Once as the original version and
once as:
No Message Collected
Any ideas?
No idea, but does this help?
http://forums.ev1servers.net/showthread.php?t=31497
2) I get
Brad Baker wrote:
We would like to add a spam report to the body of emails identified as
spam to make troubleshooting false positives easier. For instance:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 26, 2006 3:57PM
Subject: [spam] Buy ED Pills Now
The
Ken A wrote:
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Well - if you don't like me then why don't you write a filter rule to
delete message coming from me? I'm not going away so get used to it.
If my threads weren't so damn interesting it wouldn't generate so
much interest.
I think that
Kelson wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
Merging would be bad. There are plenty of us using methods other than
spamd to call SpamAssassin.
I dont think anyone is using spamd to call SpamAssassin.
Justin Mason wrote:
Jim Maul writes:
Kelson wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
Merging would be bad. There are plenty of us using methods other than
spamd to call SpamAssassin.
I dont think anyone is using spamd to call
chisina mike wrote:
MX1 sendmail server mail queue is getting bigger, it must forward all mail
to Main mail server.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mqueue]# grep stat=queue -c /var/log/maillog
6363
I tried the following commands
# vi /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf
Deliver In Background = yes
Delivery
Adam Wilbraham wrote:
To follow up on this, the message in question is flagged as spam if i
run it through spamassassin, however if I run it through spamc its not.
spamc is what Qmail Scanner invokes. Is there a separate configuration
for spamc / spamd to spamassassin? I thought not...
when
Chris Santerre wrote:
Out of total mail hitting our server 12.99% is legit and delivered. You
read correctly, 12.99%!!
65% is rejected at MTA w/ RBLs
I wonder what percentage of this 65% is legit and blocked.
21% is caught by Spamassassin and not delivered.
12.99% is legit and delivered.
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:12 PM
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Percentage of email that is spam after filtering?
Chris Santerre wrote:
Out
Patrick Sherrill wrote:
Sorry, last email was a poor example. Try this one.
Before sa-learn:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.201 required=4.9 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001,
HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=4.2]
After sa-learn:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=4.8 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham
version=3.1.0
twofers wrote:
Is this link having problems that anyone knows of?
http://www.exit0.us/index.php?pagename=RulesDuJour
I can't get to Rules Du Jour.
Actually, the whole exit0.us site doesnt work.
-Jim
Paolo Cravero wrote:
Hi,
while doing some checkup on production servers, I noticed that the
bayes_seen table on MySQL is rather big:
row: 15'814'021 (15.8Mr)
size: 1'853'882'368 bytes ( 1.8GB)
I've understood SA doesn't clean-up that table, so it has to be done
manually.
Can
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
But I have various servers with qmail-ldap configuration, where the a
first server (simple qmail installation, without ldap) receives mails
from internet and check domain using rcpthosts only, does spam and virus
checks and them forwards the mail to the others
Mike Kenny wrote:
On 11/9/06, *Jim Maul* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs. This
is not the point. The point is, its not a very good solution.
Is it even a solution? I guess that depends o nwhat
Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Like a text-file based (it's not a security hole?!) or a ldap-replica on
mail-server?
I'm searching for more examples and other ideas and find this patch for
qmail:
http://qmail.jms1.net/patches/validrcptto.cdb.shtml
I don't no if this patch is really necessary..
Ramdas P. Prabhu wrote:
Dear All,
I have a small query, and shall be highly obliged if you could solve it.
Some time back, I had enabled some option in spam assasin whereby anyone who
sent me a mail received an automated message to click on a link in order to
verify whether he was real or a
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Steve Lake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:52 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Well, that didn't take very bloody long
Ok, remember that Name Wrote: :) emails? They've
What!? You gotta be kidding me! My message was BLOCKED because it had
damnn in it? People actually use crap like this?
Wow...
-Jim
Original Message
Subject: Your email message was blocked
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:23:23 +0930
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Evan Platt wrote:
At 11:08 AM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
What!? You gotta be kidding me! My message was BLOCKED because it
had damnn in it? People actually use crap like this?
Wow...
-Jim
Original Message
Subject: Your email message was blocked
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006
Coffey, Neal wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Even worse! But (excuse my stupidity) where was the word putz in my
email? I sure as hell didnt type it.
Jim Maul wrote:
Chris Santerre wrote:
Can anyone find any common elements in these emails
because whoever this putz is, they're adapting a lot
D.J. wrote:
Blocking mail base soley on the IP address (whether because it is a
dynamic address or has at some time in the past sent a mail to a
spamtrap) is akin to shooting the postman because yesterday you
received an advertisement.
You obviously don't handle a lot of mail
Rose, Bobby wrote:
So what you're saying is that the rule that people running listservers
should maintain valid recipients who want to receive messages from the
list shouldn't be followed just because it's a list about an antispam
product? The last time I checked, the most common reason for
Brian S. Meehan wrote:
Spamassassin is invoked from Courier-MTA. (OS is SUSE Pro 9.3)
The /usr/lib/courier/etc/courierd file has the following line:
DEFAULTDELIVERY=| /usr/bin/spamassassin | /usr/lib/courier/bin/maildrop
I had tried it with 'spamc' but there was no difference. When I tried it
Brian S. Meehan wrote:
Jim,
I have it set so that i'm using /usr/bin/spamassassin now. Thanks for that
info.
Here is the relevant message header from an email that was not caught:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on
mail.meehanontheweb.com
X-Spam-Level: ***
Péntek Imre wrote:
Hello,
Why BAYES_99 have only the score 3.5 while 5.0 is required to identify a mail
as spam? I think this rule should have a score about 5.1 (or anything greater
than 5.0).
because if its wrong in its classification, then that 1 rule alone will
cause a FP. The whole
Péntek Imre wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
I've upped the scores on almost all bayes rules here because history has
shown it to be incredibly accurate here.
Yes. BTW so far I've got no FP but still get false negatives with score 3.5,
BAYES_99, using this database:
[5816] dbg: bayes: corpus size
Péntek Imre wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Are you using network tests, razor, surbl, add on rules from sare, etc?
I can just guess, as I don't know how to get to be sure.
I can find several spams marked with:
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
URIBL_AB_SURB
Are these mean I also use network
Mark wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 2 november 2006 19:00
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: BIG increase in spam today
I'm not an appliance vendor but I run a fornt end spam
filtering service and it's been a
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Hi.
I'm running FC3 on an AMD64 platform for my mail server,
and I had last installed SpamAssassin 3.1.5. Well, I grabbed the
tarball for 3.1.7, and did a rpmbuild -tb ... of the tarball.
Worked fine.
Then I tried to upgrade via RPM:
# rpm -v -U
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I am running qmail with spamassassin 3.1.5. I am having a problem with
spamassassin scoring. I have been attempting to change the score for
AWL to -25. Here is a header from an email I received a short time ago
with a score of 1.4 for AWL in the X-Spam-Report section:
in the X-Spam-Report section:
Jim Maul wrote:
You can not change the score of this rule. The AWL is not a whitelist.
It is a score averager. Its score changes depending on certain factors.
Why not just disable it and use real whitelisting?
I did not know that about AWL. As far as using
Pablo Allietti wrote:
Hi all i want to increase the score of a images rules how can i do that
? for example
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28
HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02
i want to modify the score about this rules for example 4.0 which file i
need to modify? how?
You read the documentation like a good little
Chris Szilagyi wrote:
Hello:
I have not been able to find the answer to my question so I thought I'd try
this mailing list.
I have SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (using spamc/spamd) installed on a Red Hat 7.1
system, with Perl 5.6.1. We currently have SQL user prefs enabled in a MySQL
db, and put the
Michael Beckmann wrote:
Greetings!
In the past few weeks, I have noticed significant amounts of spam
passing through my filter. It is reaching a level that annoys me. I use
Spamassassin 3.1.7.
I used to get maybe one or two spam messages a day earlier this year
with 200+ spams filtered.
Matt Florido wrote:
* Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-17-2006 10:25]:
score SARE_GIF_STOX 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Can you tell me what each corresponding 2.5 represents?
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html
Pay particular attention to the rightmost column heading in the table.
-Jim
Kelson wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, some folks still hate it because you're using some (very
little) of their CPU and network to handle your spam.
Also, a large number of verifications (say, because someone has been
sending lots of spam with forged headers) looks suspiciously like a
D.J. wrote:
I think what the original poster was asking was how to make the
gibberish bodies not get Bayes scanned, so as to not pollute the
database with text that isn't spammy.
Exactly my point.
Slightly off topic here, but I have a dumb question. If you get a
message
Daniel T. Staal wrote:
On Wed, September 27, 2006 10:43 am, Matt Kettler said:
Mike Woods wrote:
Hi guys, bit of a query regarding sa-learn and messages that have
already been tagged as spam.
We have spamassassin scanning mail via amavisd and sending any caught
spams to a spam folder in the
Richard Collyer wrote:
We're looking for a commerce antispam product.It should be high
performance and has the strong ability to capture spams.
Could you recommend me a good product about it?We are an ISP,have
millions of users.
(Please don't say Symantec's brightmail,it's fairly good,but
Matt Kettler wrote:
Christopher Mills wrote:
Look at this,
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on
chrysalis.chrysalishosting.com http://chrysalis.chrysalishosting.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score= 4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HG_HORMONE,
Christopher Mills wrote:
Hi,
We have over 100 domains on a server, all of which are getting junk mail. SA
3.1.4 installed, but I don't think it's properly trained yet (even though I did
upgrade from an earlier version).
If I set up a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] address and
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Bret Miller wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Gary Funck wrote:
Has anyone considered also supplying new rules in the
form of rpm's available via a yum-compatible repository?
It'd be nice to have the usual versioning and logging
support as well as a central update facility. This
Bowie Bailey wrote:
It doesn't really matter to me who supports which pieces as long as
they all work.
Someone may be able to fix sa-update so that it can take over from
RDJ, but as of now, that is not possible without configuring about 62
sa-update channels (one for each ruleset RDJ manages).
Gregory T Pelle wrote:
What is the procedure to have a rule score reviewed?
I have been looking over the scoring for version 3.1.x at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html
and think that a score of 1.6 is high for the DEAR_SOMETHING rule. I
know that our customer support emails
Matthew V wrote:
Hi there,
Hello.
Server: qmail vpopmail simscan-1.2 spamassassin-3 clamav
good
Client: Win2k/XP with Office 2003
not so good
I've been trying to get Outlook 2003 to automatically deposit mail
marked by spamassassin as spam into its junk email folder. What I'm
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Except now you've also delayed your valid mail by 30 minutes or an
hour which sucks (and is sometimes completely unacceptable).
Repeat after me: Email is a non-guaranteed, Best Attempt delivery
mechanism. There may be delays.
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
How about sending 450 Please Try later to ever mail with an
inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
(Obviously not my original idea :-) )
The problem there, again, is that you've already used the bandwidth
and
Ken A wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
How about sending 450 Please Try later to ever mail with an
inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
(Obviously not my original idea :-) )
The problem there, again
Ben Wylie wrote:
Am running SpamAssassin 3.1.2 on Windows 2003 server.
This is an extract from the headers of an incoming email.
This triggered the MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header rule.
Why did this not detect the subject header?
Because its blank?
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft
Ben Wylie wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Ben Wylie wrote:
Am running SpamAssassin 3.1.2 on Windows 2003 server.
This is an extract from the headers of an incoming email.
This triggered the MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header rule.
Why did this not detect the subject header?
Because its blank
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: Sietse van Zanen; SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Re: SA Score - Confidence Percentage
On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Chris
Duane Hill wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also ran
sa-update.
I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with turning off
bayes, it is still being used. I have searched the system over and
Bowie Bailey wrote:
tomcatf14 wrote:
I've disabled fast spamassassin and now it tag the subject!!!Good but
i think i still want to use Fast SA to enhance the performance.
What is fast spamassassin???
Basically spamc -c
The doc stated this:
The doc for what?
qmail-scanner
I want
tomcatf14 wrote:
What should i do if i want to use the current SA?
Follow the instructions that come with it instead of some outdated guide
somewhere.
-Jim
Matt wrote:
Hi,
What would I need to do to just outright block all e-mail that has an
inline gif or jpg (or multiple ones)?
You should do this in whatever program you have calling SA/AV/etc.. SA
itself doesn't block anything.
-Jim
Michael Di Martino wrote:
jdow wrote:
It isn't SpamAssassin doing this. It may be a misconfigured procmail
rule. I presume it could also be a misconfigured rule from any OTHER
means of tossing mail into your mailbox. But it is NOT SpamAssassin
doing it.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
Gary Forrest - Netnorth wrote:
Hi All
We have been using SA v3.1.1, all seems to work well :)
( FreeBSD 6.1, Sendmail 8.13.6 few milters )
Is it possible to get SA not to scan inbound email addressed to certain
domain names.
Yes, but not with SA itself.
We have looked at the various
Will Nordmeyer wrote:
Just put
score FROM_DOMAIN_NOVOWEL lowerscore
in your local.cf
(IE:
score FROM_DOMAIN_NOVOWEL 0.3
You don't want to adjust it in the master file - your adjustment would
be overwritten everytime you upgraded.
Not to mention that this will only affect mail TO your
Alejandro Lengua wrote:
Horde webmail has a spam reporting feature, however it
is a bit useless.
Why?
Because it sends the email (without headers) to an email
address (the spam admin). This way is very difficult to
feed the spam mail into spam detection software.
I wonder if somebody has done
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Thomas Gross wrote:
Hi List!
I'm runing a debian mailserver with qmail 1.03, vpopmail and kaspersky
anti-virus smtp-scanner 5.5.3.
Now i wanted to add the latest spamassassin to filter the spam which
grows
up to 500 mails per day.
I searched the whole
Tracey Gates wrote:
I checked and did find 2 spamd files. One was in /usr/bin with the
latest install date. The other one was in /etc/rc.d/init.d with the
older install date. I backed up the older files and replaced the ones
that are in the init.d directory with the ones from the /usr/bin
Tracey Gates wrote:
OK. Sorry, I'm a novice at all of this admin stuff. I replaced the old
files back and restarted spamd again. I did a find for spamd and here
is my results:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /]# find ./ -name spamd
find: ./proc/9832/fd: No such file or directory
./etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd
Paul Wetter wrote:
Ok, I added what you said. I think things may be back on the up and in
operation. Some spam however is still not detected, which brings me to
my next question.
I have one other question about razor checks. They do not appear to be
working. If I do a manual check (with
Igor Chudov wrote:
Doing some housecleaning...
I am running spamd as root, at which point it reverts to 'nobody'.
It then proceeds to complain, understandably, that it does not have
permission to write to users' directories.
Apr 24 23:56:57 manifold spamd[21442]: spamd: still running as
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
