>
> Sure...rain on the parade! Actually the data doesn't say if
> the marked as spams were delivered either.
>
> Remind me to poke you in the eye when I see you! ;)
>
> --Chris
>
No, the stuff marked as spam doesn't get delivered, at least not to the
users. That percentage was what doesn
> Chris Santerre writes:
> > >Total SMTP Connections
> > >6008
> > >Total Rejected By RBL
> > >4803
> > >Total Flagged By SA
> > >431
> > >Total Delivered
> > >774
> > >Percentage Delivered
> > >12
> >
> > Wow! 12%! Damn!
> >
> > Thank goodness for those SARE and SURBL guys! ;)
>
> yeah, but 12
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:41 PM
>To: Chris Santerre
>Cc: 'ROY,RHETT G'; users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Results of adding SARE rules
>
>
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>Chris San
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> >Total SMTP Connections
> >6008
> >Total Rejected By RBL
> >4803
> >Total Flagged By SA
> >431
> >Total Delivered
> >774
> >Percentage Delivered
> >12
>
> Wow! 12%! Damn!
>
> Thank goodness for those SARE and SURBL guys! ;)
Jean Caron wrote:
>
> Here's the bayes related I had in there already;
> use_bayes 1
> bayes_path /home/bayesUID/bayes
> bayes_file_mode 0666
> bayes_auto_learn 1
> Jean
Suggestion: set bayes_file_mode to 0777 not 0666.
The bayes_file_mode is really a mask not literal permi
>Total SMTP Connections
>6008
>Total Rejected By RBL
>4803
>Total Flagged By SA
>431
>Total Delivered
>774
>Percentage Delivered
>12
Wow! 12%! Damn!
Thank goodness for those SARE and SURBL guys! ;)
--Chris (Still working on a new SARE ruleset...8 months and counting)
Todd Lyons wrote:
Steven Stern wanted us to know:
We're using spamass-milter with "-r 10". Does this reject the message
(causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just discard it? If it's a
reject, how can I change it to a discard?
It rejects it at the SMTP level before sendmail ever accepts it, s
Alright. I find it strange that the defaults don't apply to my setup, but in
any case I added the following to local.cf and re-started spamd.
add_header all Status _YESNO_, score=_SCORE_ required=_REQD_ tests=_TESTS_
Here's the bayes related I had in there already;
use_bayes 1
bayes_path
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello All
>
> i'm using SA 3.00 with postfix 2.1
> I need to configure multiple spamd process
> with different configuration files (local.cf's)
>
> Has somone knowledge about this?
man spamd
Look at the --siteconfigpath and -p command-line parameters.
They can shar
M>-Original Message-
M>From: Steven Stern
M>Sent: 15 April 2005 15:56
M>To: spamass-milt-list@nongnu.org; spamass
M>Subject: Does -r reject or discard
M>
M>We're using spamass-milter with "-r 10". Does this reject
M>the message (causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just
M>discard it? I
Hello Matt,
Friday, April 15, 2005, 10:29:14 AM, you wrote:
MK> Also, did you restart spamd after installing chickenpox.cf? If you use
MK> spamd/spamc, then spamd only loads the base config files once and only
MK> reads user_prefs on a per-message basis when spamc feeds them.
Serious lack of ca
Hello,
I'm running a site wide bayesian install, and it improve a lot the spam
detection.
I was wondering if as sitewide AWL would do the same. So i look forward
to your comments :)
There is a way to export the users awl dbs to create a single global db?
or starting from zero it's a better idea?
At 07:56 AM Friday, 4/15/2005, you wrote -=>
We're using spamass-milter with "-r 10". Does this reject the message
(causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just discard it? If it's a reject,
how can I change it to a discard?
I'm asking because I'm seeing stuff in our outgoing mail queue that look
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Neil Watson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like
crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by
spamass-milter.
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of
Steven W. Orr wrote:
Recently I have been getting phone calls that friends have been getting
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like
crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by
spamass-milter.
Anyone else getting this?
I'm pretty sure your friends
I recently added the conservative (mass-check testing hit ONLY spam) version
of all the SARE rules that had been updated in 2005. I figured that was as
good a place as any to start. So far so good. Thanks to the Ninjas.
Below are some related stats from my current maillog. I don't make any
claims
Guessing at what it is your trying to do, I would
suggest you take a look at MailScanner
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2005
15:43To: SASubject: Mutliple instance of
spamd
Hello All i'm using SA 3.00 with postfix 2.1 I need to configure multi
There are two forms
of spam that we are getting a lot of and I wanted to know if anyone has already
developed a rule set to combat them. One says it is an OEM software vendor
and it lists of a ton of products and there prices. The other is in
offering low rates on mortgages. Maybe it was
At 10:44 AM 4/15/2005, Neil Watson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like
crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter.
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of th
Neil Watson wrote:
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming
some poor sod who has been joe-jobbed. Discard spam. Don't add the to
problem.
The problem with discarding is that in situations like the one
described the sender will have no idea the mail was not receiv
We're using spamass-milter with "-r 10". Does this reject the message
(causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just discard it? If it's a
reject, how can I change it to a discard?
I'm asking because I'm seeing stuff in our outgoing mail queue that
looks like reject messages.
--
Steve
Neil Watson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like
crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by
spamass-milter.
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up sp
Hello All
i'm using SA 3.00 with postfix 2.1
I need to configure multiple spamd process
with different configuration files (local.cf's)
Has somone knowledge about this?
Thanks for help
Regards
Bruno
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy
but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter.
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming
some poor sod w
At 10:24 AM 4/15/2005, Steven W. Orr wrote:
Recently I have been getting phone calls that friends have been getting
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy
but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter.
Anyone else getting this?
Nope..
At 09:50 PM 4/14/2005, Patrick Graham wrote:
I am trying tryng to understand why I am getting different scoresets based
on how the message is routed into spamassassin. My suspicions are that it
is an issue with how spamc/spamd/spamassassin is called, or a
chickenpox.cf issue, but i'm not really
Jean Caron wrote:
Really ? I never saw bayes score in the header. Sould ALL msgs have a
bayes score in the header ? Here's a sample header;
Received: from 80.231.10.208 by mail (envelope-from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, uid 1001) with qmail-scanner-1.25
(spamassassin: 3.0.2. Clear:RC:0(80.231.10.208):S
Recently I have been getting phone calls that friends have been getting
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy
but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter.
Anyone else getting this?
--
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a ban
Really ? I never saw bayes score in the header. Sould ALL msgs have a bayes
score in the header ? Here's a sample header;
Received: from 80.231.10.208 by mail (envelope-from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, uid 1001) with qmail-scanner-1.25 (spamassassin:
3.0.2. Clear:RC:0(80.231.10.208):SA:0(1.5/2.0):. P
On Friday 15 April 2005 08:03 am, Jean Caron wrote:
> Again, how can I tell for sure ?
Look in the header and see what the bayes score was on the FN.
--
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man, hated
and scorned. When the cause succeeds, however, the timid join hi
Kevin, my comments/questions are inline.
Kevin Peuhkurinen writes:
Jean Caron wrote:
Kevin, your assumption is correct, user accounts are on the server and
spamc is used. I already have the central DB setup using bayes_path in
local.cf.
I think what you are saying confirms what I suspected,
> John Andersen wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 09:57 am, Eugene Kurmanin wrote:
>>> 5. Copy SPAM to the defined mailbox;
>>> 6. Reject SPAM at the DATA stage,
>>> if SPAM score is greater than defined value;
>>> 7. Log all activities to syslog.
>>
>> Well if you are going to reject, why a
> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 09:57 am, Eugene Kurmanin wrote:
>> 5. Copy SPAM to the defined mailbox;
>> 6. Reject SPAM at the DATA stage,
>> if SPAM score is greater than defined value;
>> 7. Log all activities to syslog.
> Well if you are going to reject, why also accept
> and copy to mailbox
Jean Caron wrote:
Kevin, your assumption is correct, user accounts are on the server and
spamc is used. I already have the central DB setup using bayes_path in
local.cf.
I think what you are saying confirms what I suspected, but it's still
not 100% clear. Even though I have a central DB, all use
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Wesemann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 April 2005 20:18
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: 0 Hits on blatant spam
>
>
> http://www.timuel.com/badmessage.txt
>
We have quite a strict filtering setup for porn related messages. Under
o
Jeff Chan wrote:
The spam advertises a presumptive porn site on geocities.
Yep - I've been seeing a lot of those too (and forwarding them to abuse@
geocities.com). Luckily the spammers have been consistent (at least so
far) in how they name the sites, so the rule below does the trick...
uri lo
Hello SRH-Lists,
Wednesday, April 13, 2005, 1:49:33 PM, you wrote:
SL> I get millions (mil|ions?) of spams from this guy (well, not millions,
SL> but I have recieved 15 in the last 2 hours).
SL> While generic tests for character/letter obfuscation are difficult, this
SL> guy is pretty predictabl
How could i forgot checking the bugziila??? Well thank you and sorry for the
wasted time.
Angelo
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: SpamAssassin and Horde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
c
On Thursday, April 14, 2005, 12:17:31 PM, Tim Wesemann wrote:
> I've been getting alot of leak-through with 3.02 lately and I thought
> this one was interesting, particularly that there are plenty of rules that
> look for a certain word that rhymes with "truck" (YKWIM), but no header
> rules that l
Obvious question: did you restart spamd after you changed the rules?
Loren
On Thursday 14 April 2005 20:30, wolfgang wrote:
>In an older episode (Friday 15 April 2005 02:02),
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>> \b means "word-ish character on one side, non-wordish character on
>> the
>
>other"
>
>good explanation to help me understand my misconception, thanks.
>
>> | is not
On Thursday 14 April 2005 21:08, wolfgang wrote:
>i attach a set of rules i have been using and improving for a while
> that handle stock spam, especially the || stuff.
Stupid Q: As I don't have a 'stock.cf' file in the config dir now,
how do I add this to the ammo box? I have moved it into tha
Hello fellow sa-users,
I am trying tryng to understand why I am getting different scoresets based on
how the message is routed into spamassassin. My suspicions are that it is an
issue with how spamc/spamd/spamassassin is called, or a chickenpox.cf issue,
but i'm not really sure.
Any thoughts,
i attach a set of rules i have been using and improving for a while that
handle stock spam, especially the || stuff.
header LOCAL_STOCK_SUBJ Subject =~ /st0ck/i
describe LOCAL_STOCK_SUBJ disguised term stock found
rawbody LOCAL_STOCK_BODY/\bst0cks{0,1}\b/i
describe L
In an older episode (Friday 15 April 2005 02:02), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> \b means "word-ish character on one side, non-wordish character on the
other"
good explanation to help me understand my misconception, thanks.
> | is not a word-ish character
i was aware of that, but tried to "consid
wolfgang wrote:
> i have been trying to catch those for a while, partly successfully.
> thanks for the chickenpox hint, that looks like a good add-on.
>
> while fiddling with my rules, i noticed something strange:
> rawbody SOMERULE /\bmai\|\b/
> will not work
> rawbody SOMERULE /\bmai\|/
> will.
46 matches
Mail list logo
