Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
On 21/06/2008 10:45 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: >>> I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags: >>> >>> [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended >>> that you configure trusted_networks manually >> This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files are not used to >> lint the rulesets. Your pre files, however, are. > > Are trusted_networks generally set in any of the .pre files? If not, then > why bother checking (and complaining about the absence of) trusted_networks > if local.cf is not queried by sa-update's lint? No, they should be set in a cf file. You could open a bug in bugzilla to request an enhancement to have this debug output avoided. It's really only cosmetic. http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/ Daryl
Re: FM_BIG_REASON scoring
Robert - elists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Threshold? Yes, threshold. > Huh? What is so confusing? > You are joking right? No. > The default SA scoring spam tagging threshold is half that... Exactly. That is why I said it does seem high (in this case, assuming the default threshold of 5); however, 10 may not be bad if you (proverbially speaking) have your threshold set to something egregiously high or really want to reject all email with CAPITAL letters :-) -- Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: FM_BIG_REASON scoring
> > Seems high to me, but needs to be put in the context of your threshold. > > -- > Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Threshold? Huh? You are joking right? The default SA scoring spam tagging threshold is half that... :-) - rh
Re: FM_BIG_REASON scoring
Robert - elists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anyone think that > >10 FM_BIG_REASON Lot's of CAP words, BIG, REASON, BEST > > Is scored high or? Seems high to me, but needs to be put in the context of your threshold. -- Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FM_BIG_REASON scoring
Does anyone think that 10 FM_BIG_REASON Lot's of CAP words, BIG, REASON, BEST Is scored high or? - rh
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags: > > > > [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended > > that you configure trusted_networks manually > > This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files are not used to > lint the rulesets. Your pre files, however, are. Are trusted_networks generally set in any of the .pre files? If not, then why bother checking (and complaining about the absence of) trusted_networks if local.cf is not queried by sa-update's lint? -- Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
On 21/06/2008 2:05 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote: >> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: >>> I see the following when running sa-update with debug >>> flags: >>> >>> [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; >>> it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks >>> manually >> This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files >> are not used to lint the rulesets. Your pre files, >> however, are. >> >> >>> However: >>> >>> # grep trusted /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf >>> trusted_networks 69.55.228.210 >>> >>> --lint does not complain, and I know that local.cf is >>> being otherwise interpreted by SA because custom rules >>> contained therein are scoring. >> Yes, this is also the expected and intentional behaviour. >> Everything is working as it should. >> >> Daryl > > Should? What good is that lint anyway if it can't be used to test local rules? Yes. sa-update is specifically designed not to be concerned with your local rules. sa-update only cares if the *update* is valid (passes a lint test). It ignores your local cf files (since it doesn't care about them) but uses the pre files so that it can load any plugins that may be used by the *update* rulesets. If you want to lint your local rules (in your local cf files) use "spamassassin --lint" which will all [1] rules that are used by SA on your system. The sa-update lint is not meant to be (nor can I see a reason why you'd want it to be) used to lint test your local rules. [1] All system wide rules and the current user's per-user rules. Daryl
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
On Sat, June 21, 2008 20:05, Jari Fredriksson wrote: > Should? What good is that lint anyway if it can't be used to test local rules? spamassassin 2>&1 -D --lint | less does it confirm ? Benny Pedersen Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: >> I see the following when running sa-update with debug >> flags: >> >> [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; >> it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks >> manually > > This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files > are not used to lint the rulesets. Your pre files, > however, are. > > >> However: >> >> # grep trusted /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf >> trusted_networks 69.55.228.210 >> >> --lint does not complain, and I know that local.cf is >> being otherwise interpreted by SA because custom rules >> contained therein are scoring. > > Yes, this is also the expected and intentional behaviour. > Everything is working as it should. > > Daryl Should? What good is that lint anyway if it can't be used to test local rules?
Re: trusted_host breaks pretty much every form of whitelist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jo Rhett schrieb: | Why not allow me to say "I trust everything from this host" no matter what? Why would you run the mails through SpamAssassin if you trust everything from that host? A whitelist entry in the MTA would avoid wasting resources on those sure-to-be-good messages. Yes, this can be a significant resource saving (for my users, the single top sender is between 1 [on weekends] and 10% [on weekdays] of overall traffic). internal/trusted is not intended to be a whitelist of some sorts, it is intended as hints to construct the trust path, eg to correctly apply RBL checks. You could also bypass SA for all dnswl.org-listed "hi" trust entries - -- Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFIXTzgxbHw2nyi/okRAl9fAJ9pYM1sg1sc/Qcp8YFBekozWRq88wCggjNQ BT8JaA1fuafA4fSehNaQSyw= =/KDH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags: > > [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended > that you configure trusted_networks manually This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files are not used to lint the rulesets. Your pre files, however, are. > However: > > # grep trusted /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf > trusted_networks 69.55.228.210 > > --lint does not complain, and I know that local.cf is being otherwise > interpreted by SA because custom rules contained therein are scoring. Yes, this is also the expected and intentional behaviour. Everything is working as it should. Daryl
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
Nigel Frankcom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags: > > > >[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended > >that you configure trusted_networks manually > > > >However: > > > ># grep trusted /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf > >trusted_networks 69.55.228.210 > > I could be very wrong here, it wouldn't be the 1st time; but isn't the > main local.cf in /etc/mail/spamassassin/ Not in FreeBSD. And again, I know the local.cf *is* being interpreted because its other contents affect SA. -- Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
Nigel Frankcom wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags: [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks manually However: # grep trusted /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf trusted_networks69.55.228.210 I could be very wrong here, it wouldn't be the 1st time; but isn't the main local.cf in /etc/mail/spamassassin/ This is system dependent. Under *BSD, packages are not mixed with the base system. Per user may work differently, I'm not sure, my version of per user is handled by the MTA and a MySQL Database for users (Windows based mail server --> CentOS based SA) Might that be why sa-update is showing the error? --lint does not complain, and I know that local.cf is being otherwise interpreted by SA because custom rules contained therein are scoring.
Re: trusted_networks set in local.cf, but not according to sa-update
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags: > >[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended >that you configure trusted_networks manually > >However: > ># grep trusted /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf >trusted_networks 69.55.228.210 I could be very wrong here, it wouldn't be the 1st time; but isn't the main local.cf in /etc/mail/spamassassin/ Per user may work differently, I'm not sure, my version of per user is handled by the MTA and a MySQL Database for users (Windows based mail server --> CentOS based SA) Might that be why sa-update is showing the error? > >--lint does not complain, and I know that local.cf is being otherwise >interpreted by SA because custom rules contained therein are scoring.
