Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Sat, March 14, 2009 00:45, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Dennis German wrote:
>>
>>> Attempting to see how spamassassin would score a message
>>> I tried
>>> spamassassin < lottery.msg
>>>
>>> [32179] warn: config: could not find site rules directory
>>> c
On Sat, March 14, 2009 00:45, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Dennis German wrote:
>> Attempting to see how spamassassin would score a message
>> I tried
>> spamassassin < lottery.msg
>>
>> [32179] warn: config: could not find site rules directory
>> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_ma
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:41:23 +0100
fl...@pbartels.info wrote:
> instead of disabling a lot possibly set message headers using
> "bayes_ignore_header" and ending up in strange configs like:
>
>
>
> (found on the net)
Just because you found them on the net doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Normall
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-dev/200707.mbox/%3c5548@spamassassin.apache.org%3e
>
>
> ram across this bug posting about a rumored problem with freebsd,
> amd64 and spamassassin.
>
> trying to follow the bug url, got 'you are not allowed to vie
fl...@pbartels.info wrote:
> Hello,
>
> instead of disabling a lot possibly set message headers using
> "bayes_ignore_header" and ending up in strange configs like:
>
> bayes_ignore_header Return-Path
> bayes_ignore_header Received
> bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Flag
> bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Stat
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM, J.D. Falk
wrote:
> RobertH wrote:
>
>> there is bound to be some way that those (of us or the SA Team) that want
>> to
>> participate, can help you and help us at the same time.
>>
>> some type of automated plugin that needs to be created that reports to us
>> and
Hello,
instead of disabling a lot possibly set message headers using
"bayes_ignore_header" and ending up in strange configs like:
bayes_ignore_header Return-Path
bayes_ignore_header Received
bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Flag
bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Status
bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Flag
baye
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-dev/200707.mbox/%3c5548@spamassassin.apache.org%3e
ram across this bug posting about a rumored problem with freebsd, amd64
and spamassassin.
trying to follow the bug url, got 'you are not allowed to view this bug'
anyone know if its fi
RobertH wrote:
there is bound to be some way that those (of us or the SA Team) that want to
participate, can help you and help us at the same time.
some type of automated plugin that needs to be created that reports to us
and returnpath info relevant to stopping the bad eggs yet allowing the go
> Von: Rosenbaum, Larry M. [mailto:rosenbau...@ornl.gov]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. März 2009 20:33
> An: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Betreff: RE: Hostname in X-Spam-Checker-Version Header
>
> > as shown in the manual, the X-Spam-Checker-Version header is not
> > configurable for some reason. I
> From: netz-haut - stephan seitz [mailto:s.se...@netz-haut.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:15 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Hostname in X-Spam-Checker-Version Header
>
> Hi there,
>
> as shown in the manual, the X-Spam-Checker-Version header is not
> configurable for so
LuKreme wrote:
> On 17-Mar-2009, at 10:12, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > If you do not want to allow user rules, you
> > can define the rule in local.cf and give it a 0 score. The
> > individual users would then be able to activate the rule by
> > changing the score in user_prefs.
>
>
> Oh? Well, tha
LuKreme wrote:
It's very simple, I don't
see Habeas headers in legitimate email, and haven't for years. I see it
in spam. I score it up. The score of -8.0 is ridiculous for something
that is so easily forged.
They haven't *used* the headers in years, either. Habeas is an IP-based
whitelis
On 17-Mar-2009, at 10:12, Bowie Bailey wrote:
If you do not want to allow user rules, you
can define the rule in local.cf and give it a 0 score. The individual
users would then be able to activate the rule by changing the score in
user_prefs.
Oh? Well, that's clever. I thought scoring 0 dis
Hi there,
as shown in the manual, the X-Spam-Checker-Version header is not configurable
for some reason. Is there some configuration magic to change just the hostname
of this header? We're running a bunch of multi-homed mail servers and I just
want to glue the shown name to the "official" hostn
Cornersoyo wrote:
> Using SA with cpanel.
>
> Based on the spam we're receiving, I set up an "all accounts" rule in
> cpanel that checks for "http://"; in the body AND then performs about
> 20 "OR" checks for different phrases like: unsubscribe, opt out, to
> end emails, cease future notices, etc.
At 09:25 AM 3/17/2009, you wrote:
Using SA with cpanel.
What is the best way to have all spam scored 6 or higher deleted,
while continuing to filter all identified ***SPAM*** scoring lower
than that to a separate account?
If you don't get an answer here, your best bet would be to ask on a
c
Using SA with cpanel.
What is the best way to have all spam scored 6 or higher deleted, while
continuing to filter all identified ***SPAM*** scoring lower than that to a
separate account?
It seems that if I tell SA to "auto-delete" at a certain level on the first
configuration page, the add
Using SA with cpanel.
Based on the spam we're receiving, I set up an "all accounts" rule in cpanel
that checks for "http://"; in the body AND then performs about 20 "OR" checks
for different phrases like: unsubscribe, opt out, to end emails, cease future
notices, etc.
The idea is that i
I did not realize you were talking about whitelisting when I replied.
The whitelist_from and related commands use filename globbing. You can
use '?' to represent one character or '*' to represent any number of
characters, but that is the extent of it.
The rule that I listed below can be used as a
> From: Neil Schwartzman
>
snip
>
> Well, to each his own. I have spent a lot of time reporting spam in my
> life, (probably too much), in actual fact.
>
> My thinking in reporting spam to DNSBLs (I am or was in the top 10
> reporters at Phishtank & URIBL, high on the board at Netcraft, and
>
RobertH wrote:
I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
spamming...
COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT
spam whether you want it or not. Isn't it good to have
someone who will sue spammers?
--
Matus UHLAR -
and the reason we use that here
>
> I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
> spamming...
> COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT
> spam whether you want it or not. Isn't it good to have
> someone who will sue spammers?
>
> --
> Matus UHLAR -
Matus
even though it is COI, what i s
some time back this was posted to the list by Scheidell and after checking
and investigating our logs, we adopted it.
is it still valid to be using, or should we modify it again
:-)
# from scheid...@secnap.net
#
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 2.5
tflags HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI net
#
score HABEAS_ACC
On 17/03/09 6:59 AM, "John Hardin" wrote:
> A question if I may, Neil: does returnpath run any spamtraps to see
> whether your clients are indeed violating your terms? Having few
> complaints is not necessarily a good metric given the number of people who
> will simply curse you and hit [DELETE]
On 17/03/09 6:41 AM, "LuKreme" wrote:
> On 17-Mar-2009, at 03:08, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
>> spamming...
>
> Why? My time is valuable, and I don't have any interest in being an
> unpaid volunteer for a commercial service.
Wel
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
Since February 17, we have received less than 20 complaints.
A question if I may, Neil: does returnpath run any spamtraps to see
whether your clients are indeed violating your terms? Having few
complaints is not necessarily a good metric given the
On 17/03/09 5:08 AM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
> I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for spamming...
> COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT spam whether
> you want it or not. Isn't it good to have someone who will sue spammers?
Matus,
Habeas had
On 17-Mar-2009, at 03:08, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
spamming...
Why? My time is valuable, and I don't have any interest in being an
unpaid volunteer for a commercial service. It's very simple, I don't
see Habeas headers in l
2009/3/17 Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
>> > On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
>> >> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
>> >> Better
>> >> [208.82.16.109 listed in
>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme
On 17.03.09 14:02, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> I'm running Spamassassin 3.1.7, with netqmail 1.05, ClamAv etc..
old ! The current SA version is 3.2.5 - upgrade.
> We've been subject to being joe-jobbed on one of our domains here at
> work. We were lucky as we were able to switch off delivery
> > On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
> >> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
> >> Better
> >> [208.82.16.109 listed in
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> > I changed my HABEAS scores age
32 matches
Mail list logo
