Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Alex wrote: As John said, masschecks is being starved. How far off is it from being sufficiently populated? You can always visit the masscheck home page and hover over the stats to see the latest submitted corpus size. Last run was 102k spam, 203k ham. The minimum to publish scores is 150k of each. Note: results are submitted over time as contributors complete their masscheck processing, so if you look at the latest masscheck run you may not be seeing the final numbers. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/ How many contributors do we have on a regular basis? A little over a dozen? -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Men by their constitutions are naturally divided in to two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. -- Thomas Jefferson --- Tomorrow: Benjamin Franklin's 310th Birthday
Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?
Hi, >> I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three >> weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? > > i noticed that long ago - look in the list archives also for the responses Yes, I recall, but still nothing is being done to make a major component of spamassassin work properly. >> This is a significant part of what makes spamassassin so great > > SA don't stop to work just because a few scores are not changed, sometimes > the opposite may be true when masschecks score something lower based on a > current situation I never said it stops working, only that the dynamic update nature makes it special, and we need every benefit we can. It's a shame the sought rules are no longer being maintained too. As John said, masschecks is being starved. How far off is it from being sufficiently populated? How many contributors do we have on a regular basis?
Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Alex wrote: I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? The masscheck spam corpus has been starved. Possibly due to the holidays, though I can't say for sure. This is a significant part of what makes spamassassin so great. Is there no one else that has a regular spam/ham stream that can contribute? More masscheck contributors, especially outside the US, are always welcome. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Gun Control laws cannot reduce violent crime, because gun control laws focus obsessively on a tool a criminal might use to commit a crime rather than the criminal himself and his act of violence. --- Tomorrow: Benjamin Franklin's 310th Birthday
Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?
Am 16.01.2016 um 19:38 schrieb Alex: I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? i noticed that long ago - look in the list archives also for the responses This is a significant part of what makes spamassassin so great SA don't stop to work just because a few scores are not changed, sometimes the opposite may be true when masschecks score something lower based on a current situation hence: [root@mail-gw:~]$ cat templates/local.cf | grep "score " | wc -l 402 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Call-to-action: no sa-updates?
Alex skrev den 2016-01-16 19:38: I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? more masscheckers wont hurt anyone This is a significant part of what makes spamassassin so great. Is there no one else that has a regular spam/ham stream that can contribute? but saying lacking masschekers makes spamassassin not usefull is not correct, only wish i have is to see dmarc plugin in spamassassin, and btw rspamd.com have spamassassin support (limited rules) and working dkim/dmarc testing so atleast there is progress pyzor/razor/dcc/nixhash is in rspamd fuzzy engine to share on every host in a cloud, with rmilter its even possible to use spamd protocol, i love it :=) have last 14 days now helping solve rspamd/rmilter problems on gentoo and just today i got the rspamd live rebuild for gentoo created oh well borring weekends :=)
Call-to-action: no sa-updates?
Hi, I've noticed there hasn't been any rule updates in at least three weeks. Any idea what's going on? Is it lacking masschecks samples? This is a significant part of what makes spamassassin so great. Is there no one else that has a regular spam/ham stream that can contribute?
Re: AWL on per-user basis
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 15:07:36 +0300 ? wrote: > No, spamd is running as user "root", so I don't have the "-u" key > anywhere in the smapd configs. I'm sorry for not making this clear > enough. > > What I meant to say is that when I send or receive a message through > my Exim (on the remote host) it passes the message to the spamd by > calling a locally installed (i.e. installed on the same host where > Exim is) spamc binary with the following command: "spamc > -F /etc/spamc/spamc.conf -u $local_part@$domain". Unfortunately, I am > still unable to get this setup working properly with AWL, as username > in the AWL table is set to "nobody". Running spamd without -u is intended to support unix account users. In this case the spamd child process drops its privileges from root to the user running spamc or the user specified by spamc -u. This allows spamd to access home directories without running as root. Probably what's happening is that as $local_part@$domain isn't a unix user, spamd is overriding it with the unix user "nobody" to avoid scanning an email as root. You should be running spamd with "-u spamd" which causes spamd to drop its privileges to the unprivileged user spamd after it has bound to the default port (it's usually called spamd, but your spamassassin package may have created some other user for this purpose). When you do this, the user in spamc -u can be treated as a virtual user.
Re: AWL on per-user basis
Good day! Thanks for your reply. No, spamd is running as user "root", so I don't have the "-u" key anywhere in the smapd configs. I'm sorry for not making this clear enough. What I meant to say is that when I send or receive a message through my Exim (on the remote host) it passes the message to the spamd by calling a locally installed (i.e. installed on the same host where Exim is) spamc binary with the following command: "spamc -F /etc/spamc/spamc.conf -u $local_part@$domain". Unfortunately, I am still unable to get this setup working properly with AWL, as username in the AWL table is set to "nobody". Looking forward to your reply, Boris On 14 January 2016 at 17:49, RW wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:21:44 +0300 > ? wrote: > > > I'm using Spamassassin 3.4.0 on Debian Jessie and trying to set up AWL > > stored in SQL on a per-user basis. My setup is as follows: > > > > 1) Spamassassin is run as 'spamd' on behalf of user root, the options > > string is as follows: > > Is spamd getting "-u spamd" or "--username=spamd" from some other > part of the configuration? In my experience you still need this even if > you start the daemon directly as spamd. > > > OPTIONS="-D --create-prefs -x -q -Q --max-children 5 > > --helper-home-dir -i --allow-tell > > --allowed-ips=" >
