On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] yowled:
> Robert Menschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 17.01.2006 03:41:39:
>> Bigger problem: bayes can only learn what it's taught. If you have
>> ham that really should be trained, and because of privacy issues it
>> should not be kept after training, th
Im afraid I dont have that flag available. My spamassassin version is 2.64.
Is there a smart way of deleting the bayes db?
Thanks.
-Mensaje original-
De: xueron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: jueves, 19 de enero de 2006 2:16
Para: Jaime Aguado
CC: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Asu
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:00 am, Mike Jackson wrote:
> > It will either remove the existing headers and add it's own, or rename
> > the existing headers so that they don't conflict.
> >
> > If the server is adding markup to the subject line, that may be an
> > issue.
> >
> > My best advice i
Why not delete the bayes database :)
Or maybe you can change the value of bayes_expiry_max_db_size to make
the older tokens expire? I am not sure for this :)
---
Xueron Nee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matthew Sill wrote:
> I have a question about Spamassassin rules, I searched google, but
> didn't find anything like this.
>I am looking for a rule that hits a message body like this:
>
>
> augmentation Austrian backstop Ballard blasphemes bluer blurts bondage
> bran bunted caption Catalina c
jason lingnau wrote:
> Hi yall! ,
>
> Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions!
>
> SA version 2.83/razor2
Erm, check that version number.. there are no SA version between 2.66 and 2.99.
>
> Most spam of the spam SA scores ( 5 and over) is getting labeled as
> {Spam?} but
I have a question about Spamassassin rules, I searched google, but
didn't find anything like this.
I am looking for a rule that hits a message body like this:
augmentation Austrian backstop Ballard blasphemes bluer blurts bondage bran
bunted caption Catalina circulates citadels combed compa
Hi yall! ,Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions! SA version 2.83/razor2Most spam of the spam SA scores ( 5 and over) is getting labeled as {Spam?} but not all . Subject: [RE] 01-17-06 Update ReleasedContent analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name
I am wondering if anyone can direct me to any books/sites/etc regarding
possibly running postfix on one or more servers accepting mail, processing
with SA, then forwarding onto a 3rd machine.
Currently my setup only includes one Postfix box, which does all of the
mail
filtering (with spamassass
We have 1 box facing the internet, and a bunch of boxes to handle
pop3/SA/Clam.
For 10k email addresses, we had until recently a duron700 with 384MB
facing the internet, and it worked fine. We just upgraded it to an
athlon 1100 with 1GB. This runs postfix, rejects some network
blacklisted email,
Yes they are rejecting mail for unknown users.
However, currently I have it discard flagged spam, rather than reject it.
Granted there are some that SA does not catch, therefore go into the whole
limbo situation.
I currently have no way for this machine to check the validity of a user. :(
It resi
Alan Fullmer wrote:
>
> The setup works, however I get so backlogged. For example, running a
> mailq as we speak, comes up with:
> 35918 Kbytes in 5257 Requests.
>
> It eventually gets through, and during the night it catches up. I am
> seeing delays up to 3 hours sometimes. I tail -f the mai
Greetings,
I am wondering if anyone can direct me to any books/sites/etc regarding
possibly running postfix on one or more servers accepting mail, processing
with SA, then forwarding onto a 3rd machine.
Currently my setup only includes one Postfix box, which does all of the mail
filtering (with
Robert Swan wrote:
> I am getting the following in my Maillog and wondered if anyone knew how
> to rectify, I am using Redhat9, Spamassassin 3.1.0 and postfix:
>
>
>
> Jan 18 14:09:01 spamma spamd[16397]: prefork: server reached
> --max-clients setting, consider raising it
Well, first there's
Had a problem earlier when postfix stopped working and I had a backup of e-mail in my active queue, here are some errors from the log. Anyone seen this before or know why it might have happened> I reloaded postfix and it fixed it but not sure of the cause. Jan 18 14:07:05 spamma postfix/qmgr
I am getting the following in my Maillog and wondered if
anyone knew how to rectify, I am using Redhat9, Spamassassin 3.1.0 and postfix:
Jan 18 14:09:01 spamma spamd[16397]:
prefork: server reached --max-clients setting, consider raising it
Thanks in advance,
Robert
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-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 PR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
FORGED_RCVD_HELO can be entirely ignored -- it has a virtually-zero score
in 1 scoreset, and is zeroed out in all the others.
Don't judge a rule's validity by its name, judge by what score the mails
get at the end of the process. In this case, 0.7
Any update on when the stock spam rule might be posted? I've fed dozens in to bayes, and they're still making it through.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] stipulated:
> From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>> I run SA 3.1 on a home system which gets about 200 - 250 msgs a day, the
>> majority being spam of course. I have 768mb of ram with
>> a swap of 612mb,
> > how do i tell SA on the other server not to touch my mails at all?
> > SA is invoked from within qmail there.
>
> You would have to tell qmail not to invoke SA for your messages.
>
> But why is it a problem? When you run SA on your server, it should
> automatically remove the markup added by
Hi,
I just noticed something a little weird in a message autogenerated by
openoffice.org's bug system. The message tripped several spam rules.
Ones like NO_REAL_NAME, SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE, and SUBJECT_EXCESS_BASE64
don't bother me so much. FORGED_RCVD_HELO seems like it shouldn't be
tripping for
Mathias Homann wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> > > how do i tell SA on the other server not to touch my mails at all?
> > > SA is invoked from within qmail there.
> >
> > You would have to tell qmail not to invoke SA for your messages.
> >
> > But why is it a problem? When you run SA on your s
> -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 PROTECTE
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-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
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> how do i tell SA on the other server not to touch my mails at all?
>> SA is invoked from within qmail there.
>
> You would have to tell qmail not to invoke SA for your messages.
>
> But why is it a problem? When you run SA on your server, it should
> automatically remove t
Mathias Homann wrote:
>
> i want spamassassin not to touch my mails at all.
> server in question runs SA with mysql for user config.
>
> reason: i fetch with fetchmail from there, and run my own SA on my
> own mail server.
>
> how do i tell SA on the other server not to touch my mails at all?
>
Hi,
i want spamassassin not to touch my mails at all.
server in question runs SA with mysql for user config.
reason: i fetch with fetchmail from there, and run my own SA on my own mail
server.
how do i tell SA on the other server not to touch my mails at all?
SA is invoked from within qmail t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Uhm, I wonder were you got this information from...
It was quite some time ago... early Pentium 1, IIRC. I just hate
oversimplifications and "adding more RAM will certainly help" is
certainly wrong. I did mention several scenarios which might cause his
problems w
Our spamassassin system is not able to catch 80% of incoming spam messages
I am afraid our bayes db has learned wrong items as it was fed with spam
messages directly from Outlook right after the installation and
configuration steps.
Is there a way to reset the spam/ham learned messages on the bay
Robert Menschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 17.01.2006 03:41:39:
> sad> I'm currently trying to build up a new bayes DB here, ...
> sad> ... yet it poses a problem to build up the ham part.
> sad> ... Much of the inbound smtp mail either contains private or
> sad> confidential information, so I
Patrick von der Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 17.01.2006 20:47:52:
> PS: more RAM usually is a good idea but situations have been reported,
> where adding memory just killed performance, so be careful with such
> generalizations. There have been Intel-mainboard-chipsets with
> 2nd-level-
32 matches
Mail list logo
