Michael Bellears wrote:
"I'm using 3.0.2 on a debian woody box. Its from www.backports.org
(great site)"
Ok, so you're using Spamassassin 3.0.2 on Debian. Are you
using Sendmail, qmail, courier, or postfix? I honestly don't
know that Debian uses as a default mailserver.
Exim.
Ok
> > "I'm using 3.0.2 on a debian woody box. Its from www.backports.org
> > (great site)"
> >
> Ok, so you're using Spamassassin 3.0.2 on Debian. Are you
> using Sendmail, qmail, courier, or postfix? I honestly don't
> know that Debian uses as a default mailserver.
Exim.
Matthew Lenz wrote:
- Original Message - From: "AltGrendel"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: my girlfriend is getting ticked :)
Mike Jackson wrote:
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The
false-negative was labeled 99% spam by Bayes
On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:21:01 PM, Matthew Lenz wrote:
> I just installed backports perl-libnet-dns (.48, hope that is new
> enough .49 is the newest). Is there anywhere I can check to see if
> 'network tests' (what the SURBL says needs to be enabled) are enabled?
Set your trust path corre
- Original Message -
From: "AltGrendel"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: my girlfriend is getting ticked :)
Mike Jackson wrote:
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The false-negative
was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
I don't see
On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:20:17 PM, Mike Jackson wrote:
>> Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The false-negative
>> was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
>>
>> I don't see any RBL checks, which might have made the difference on this
>> one, if it's already been seen and flagged.
Mike Jackson wrote:
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The
false-negative was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
I don't see any RBL checks, which might have made the difference on
this one, if it's already been seen and flagged. Do you have
Net::DNS installed and the RLB tests enab
Matthew Lenz wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_80_90,
HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID autolearn=no version=3.0.2
I see your false negative scored 99% on bayes. The BAYES_99 rule has a
much lower score
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:28 -0800, Morris Jones wrote:
> Mike Jackson wrote:
> > In my experience, it's more efficient to let the MTA handle the RBL
> > checks instead of Spamassassin. I can't remember what MTA the OP was
> > using, but it's trivial to set them up in Sendmail. On my employer's
>
On 30 Mar 2005 at 15:27, Matthew Lenz wrote:
> here is an example of the headers from an spam that wasn't caught
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_80_90,
> HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
> MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID autolearn=no
Mike Jackson wrote:
In my experience, it's more efficient to let the MTA handle the RBL
checks instead of Spamassassin. I can't remember what MTA the OP was
using, but it's trivial to set them up in Sendmail. On my employer's
boxes, I use the spamhaus.org lists, but on my personal box (where I c
Run an email through spamassassin with the -D debug flag and it will
tell you eerything.
Mojo
Matthew Lenz wrote:
I just installed backports perl-libnet-dns (.48, hope that is new
enough .49 is the newest). Is there anywhere I can check to see if
'network tests' (what the SURBL says needs to
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The false-negative
was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
I don't see any RBL checks, which might have made the difference on this
one, if it's already been seen and flagged. Do you have Net::DNS
installed and the RLB tests enabled? What happens i
I just installed backports perl-libnet-dns (.48, hope that is new
enough .49 is the newest). Is there anywhere I can check to see if
'network tests' (what the SURBL says needs to be enabled) are enabled?
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:15 -0800, Morris Jones wrote:
> Matthew Lenz wrote:
> > my girlfrien
Matthew Lenz wrote:
my girlfriend has been bitching at me for quite some time now to figure
out why spamassassin isn't catching the spam like it used to. I'm using
3.0.2 on a debian woody box. Its from www.backports.org (great site).
Here is an example of the X-Virus/Spam headers from a spam that
t all).
:(
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:02 PM
To: Spamassassin Users
Subject: Re: my girlfriend is getting ticked :)
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:45 -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:27 -0600, Matt
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:45 -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:27 -0600, Matthew Lenz wrote:
> [snip spam info]
> > Ideas where to start (other than having her change her email address
> > hehe)
>
> It doesn't look like you are using any of the SARE rulesets. There are
> 3 thing
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:27 -0600, Matthew Lenz wrote:
[snip spam info]
> Ideas where to start (other than having her change her email address
> hehe)
It doesn't look like you are using any of the SARE rulesets. There are
3 things I would do to start off... First, assuming that the 5000
messages
--On Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:27 PM -0600 Matthew Lenz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
here is an example of the headers from an spam that wasn't caught
Attach the whole message with headers to a list post.
my girlfriend has been bitching at me for quite some time now to figure
out why spamassassin isn't catching the spam like it used to. I'm using
3.0.2 on a debian woody box. Its from www.backports.org (great site).
Here is an example of the X-Virus/Spam headers from a spam that was
caught:
..
20 matches
Mail list logo
