Re: more spam since upgrade
Vivek Khera said: > I'm not using Bayes since the filtering is site-wide at the smtp server > level. I use bayes sitewide for 600 users, and have processed a few million messages. Bayes sitewide works well, as the spam email is obviously unlike the normal mail anyone receives. I would enable bayes sitewide, and put it at a low scoring if you are worried about it's accuracy. -- Luke Computer Science System Administrator Security Administrator,College of Engineering Montana State University-Bozeman,Montana
Re: more spam since upgrade
On Oct 6, 2004, at 6:56 AM, Darren Coleman wrote: - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If not why not? :) with so many to choose from, how do you decide which ones to use? there needs to be some sort of user ranking and/or stats on these to help make an informed decision. I'm mostly seeing a lot of Phish and nigerian scam/lottery scam variants. Some very well crafted drug spam makes it through, too. I'm not using Bayes since the filtering is site-wide at the smtp server level. Vivek Khera, Ph.D. +1-301-869-4449 x806 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: more spam since upgrade
I haven't seen that with the upgrade, did the required_hits get raised by any chance with a new config? Also this is off your topic but helpful are you using Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL This has worked very well for us. http://www.surbl.org/ Joey -Original Message- From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 2:27 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade With SA-2.63 I guest that 95% or even more spam was found not approx. 70-80% and now very trival spams come through for example (I replaced 'V' and 'P' with 'X') Xiagra and Xenis. Zsolt > -Original Message- > From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:06 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: more spam since upgrade > > > > spamassassin --lint passes without any messages. Is that OK or not? > > That is good. Sounds like you have a clean set of config files. > > If the problem at this point is things leaking through (but you ARE > seeing scores, so you know things are basically working) than I would > get some SARE rules, plus some of the old standbys like tripwire and > backhair. > > If you are NOT seeing scores on any message, then you have some sort > of configuration problem in you mail chain. > > Loren > >
RE: more spam since upgrade
With SA-2.63 I guest that 95% or even more spam was found not approx. 70-80% and now very trival spams come through for example (I replaced 'V' and 'P' with 'X') Xiagra and Xenis. Zsolt > -Original Message- > From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:06 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: more spam since upgrade > > > > spamassassin --lint passes without any messages. Is that OK or not? > > That is good. Sounds like you have a clean set of config files. > > If the problem at this point is things leaking through (but you ARE seeing > scores, so you know things are basically working) than I would > get some SARE > rules, plus some of the old standbys like tripwire and backhair. > > If you are NOT seeing scores on any message, then you have some sort of > configuration problem in you mail chain. > > Loren > >
Re: more spam since upgrade
> spamassassin --lint passes without any messages. Is that OK or not? That is good. Sounds like you have a clean set of config files. If the problem at this point is things leaking through (but you ARE seeing scores, so you know things are basically working) than I would get some SARE rules, plus some of the old standbys like tripwire and backhair. If you are NOT seeing scores on any message, then you have some sort of configuration problem in you mail chain. Loren
Re: more spam since upgrade [Scanned]
> I would like to add more rules, but not sure what to add that isn't already > being handled by SA? The www.rulesemporium.com does mention what SA has > added though is still a little vague on what all has been integrated into SA > and with the timeouts not really wanting to place more on SA until resolved. We really need to work on a set of pages for "use this set for version X.XX" to make things obvious. However, most of the SARE rules themselves are still applicable to 3.0. There is one set that is not, and is marked as such. Aome of the 'additional rules' are also not required, since they are there. Antidrug comes to mind. > Have some of the rules been set with lower values with the new SA? I > remember reading on the list that this may be the case to balance out all > the other rules in place. All of the scores are "different" than before, because it is a big balancing act. The most notable "lower score" seems to be BAYES_99, which actually scores less than BAYES_90 in some scoresets. Hand-tweaking that score up a bit has apparently helped a few people. Loren
RE: more spam since upgrade
spamassassin --lint passes without any messages. Is that OK or not? Zsolt > -Original Message- > From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:56 PM > To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > > Is the last line meant as some kind of threat? :) > > I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with > your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and > have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result. > > - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If > not why not? :) > - Have you verified that your configuration is correct and working? > (spamassassin --lint) > > That's a good starting point. > > Regards, > > Daz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 06 October 2004 11:47 > > To: Spamassassin > > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > > > Hi, > > > > since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most > of > > them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'), > > Xenis > > (I replaced 'P' with 'X') are not found either in Subject or in Body. > > > > I will go back to 2.63 unless somebody can help me to fix the problem. > > > > Zsolt > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: more spam since upgrade > > > > > > > > > Hi List. > > > > > > I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1 > > > > > > The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased > > dramatically. > > > > > > The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading. > > > > > > Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it > > > originates. > > > > > > Any ideas would be appreciated. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: Tom Theroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:26:30 + > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > X-Priority: 3 > > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. > > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. > > > X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 196.4.87.24 > > > X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: US Students email list > > > Content-Type: multipart/related; > > > type="multipart/alternative"; > > > boundary="=_NextPart_000__AC8AFB96.13499A18" > > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on jp-mx-1 > > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.4 > > > tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, > > > > > > > HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,INVALID_TZ_GMT,URIBL_SBL, > > > URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.0 > > > X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:32 +0200) > > > > > > > > > <> > > > > > > > > > >
RE: more spam since upgrade
We also use spamc/spamd. Zsolt > -Original Message- > From: Tan, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:29 PM > To: Darren Coleman; Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > > We have gotten better accuracy from 3.0 as well. We use a small > whitelist, stock rules, plus the conservative SARE rules (conservative > meaning no supposed chance of ham), and no bigevil. > > My only major complaint is the memory footprint. We use spamc/spamd, > and I've reduced the number of preforks as well as having zthe spamd's > die every 10 messages to reduce the memory utilization. > > > -Original Message- > From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:56 AM > To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > > Is the last line meant as some kind of threat? :) > > I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with > your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and > have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result. > > - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If > not why not? :) > - Have you verified that your configuration is correct and working? > (spamassassin --lint) > > That's a good starting point. > > Regards, > > Daz > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 06 October 2004 11:47 > > To: Spamassassin > > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > > > Hi, > > > > since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most > of > > them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'), > > Xenis (I replaced 'P' with 'X') are not found either in Subject or in > > Body. > > > > I will go back to 2.63 unless somebody can help me to fix the problem. > > > > Zsolt > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: more spam since upgrade > > > > > > > > > Hi List. > > > > > > I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1 > > > > > > The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased > > dramatically. > > > > > > The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading. > > > > > > Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it > > > originates. > > > > > > Any ideas would be appreciated. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: Tom Theroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:26:30 + > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > X-Priority: 3 > > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. > > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. > > > X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 196.4.87.24 > > > X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: US Students email list > > > Content-Type: multipart/related; > > > type="multipart/alternative"; > > > boundary="=_NextPart_000__AC8AFB96.13499A18" > > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on jp-mx-1 > > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.4 > > > tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, > > > > > > > HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,INVALID_TZ_GMT,URIBL_SBL, > > > URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.0 > > > X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:32 +0200) > > > > > > > > > <> > > > > > > > > > >
RE: more spam since upgrade
We have gotten better accuracy from 3.0 as well. We use a small whitelist, stock rules, plus the conservative SARE rules (conservative meaning no supposed chance of ham), and no bigevil. My only major complaint is the memory footprint. We use spamc/spamd, and I've reduced the number of preforks as well as having zthe spamd's die every 10 messages to reduce the memory utilization. -Original Message- From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:56 AM To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade Is the last line meant as some kind of threat? :) I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result. - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If not why not? :) - Have you verified that your configuration is correct and working? (spamassassin --lint) That's a good starting point. Regards, Daz > -Original Message- > From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 October 2004 11:47 > To: Spamassassin > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > Hi, > > since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most of > them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'), > Xenis (I replaced 'P' with 'X') are not found either in Subject or in > Body. > > I will go back to 2.63 unless somebody can help me to fix the problem. > > Zsolt > > > -Original Message- > > From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: more spam since upgrade > > > > > > Hi List. > > > > I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1 > > > > The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased > dramatically. > > > > The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading. > > > > Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it > > originates. > > > > Any ideas would be appreciated. > > > > Regards > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Tom Theroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:26:30 + > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > X-Priority: 3 > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. > > X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 196.4.87.24 > > X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: US Students email list > > Content-Type: multipart/related; > > type="multipart/alternative"; > > boundary="=_NextPart_000__AC8AFB96.13499A18" > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on jp-mx-1 > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.4 > > tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, > > > > HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,INVALID_TZ_GMT,URIBL_SBL, > > URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.0 > > X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:32 +0200) > > > > > > <> > > > > >
RE: more spam since upgrade
Sorry, the attached file was empty, here it is again.
Zsolt
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:56 PM
> To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin
> Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
>
>
> Is the last line meant as some kind of threat? :)
>
> I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with
> your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and
> have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result.
>
> - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If
> not why not? :)
> - Have you verified that your configuration is correct and working?
> (spamassassin --lint)
>
> That's a good starting point.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daz
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 06 October 2004 11:47
> > To: Spamassassin
> > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most
> of
> > them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'),
> > Xenis
> > (I replaced 'P' with 'X') are not found either in Subject or in Body.
> >
> > I will go back to 2.63 unless somebody can help me to fix the problem.
> >
> > Zsolt
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: more spam since upgrade
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi List.
> > >
> > > I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1
> > >
> > > The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased
> > dramatically.
> > >
> > > The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading.
> > >
> > > Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it
> > > originates.
> > >
> > > Any ideas would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > From: Tom Theroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:26:30 +
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > X-Priority: 3
> > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.
> > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.
> > > X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 196.4.87.24
> > > X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: US Students email list
> > > Content-Type: multipart/related;
> > > type="multipart/alternative";
> > > boundary="=_NextPart_000__AC8AFB96.13499A18"
> > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on jp-mx-1
> > > X-Spam-Level: ***
> > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.4
> > > tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS,
> > >
> > >
> HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,INVALID_TZ_GMT,URIBL_SBL,
> > > URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.0
> > > X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:32 +0200)
> > >
> > >
> > > <>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.0
debug: Score set 0 chosen.
debug: running in taint mode? yes
debug: Running in taint mode, removing unsafe env vars, and resetting PATH
debug: PATH included '/usr/local/svn/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/home/codebeamer/bin', which is world writable, dropping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/local/bin', which doesn't exist, dropping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/X11R6/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/games', keeping.
debug: PATH included '.', which is not absolute, dropping.
debug: Final PATH set to:
/usr/local/svn/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/bin:/usr/games
debug: diag: module installed: DBI, version 1.28
debug: diag: module installed: DB_File, version 1.804
debug: diag: module installed: Digest::SHA1, version 2.01
debug: diag: module installed: IO::Socket::UNIX, version 1.2
debug: diag: module installed: MIME::Base64, version 2.12
debug: diag: module installed: Net::DNS, version 0.24
debug: diag: module not installed: Net::LDAP ('require' faile
RE: more spam since upgrade
I have attached the results of: spamassassin -D --lint Zsolt > -Original Message- > From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:56 PM > To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > > Is the last line meant as some kind of threat? :) > > I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with > your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and > have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result. > > - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If > not why not? :) > - Have you verified that your configuration is correct and working? > (spamassassin --lint) > > That's a good starting point. > > Regards, > > Daz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 06 October 2004 11:47 > > To: Spamassassin > > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > > > Hi, > > > > since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most > of > > them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'), > > Xenis > > (I replaced 'P' with 'X') are not found either in Subject or in Body. > > > > I will go back to 2.63 unless somebody can help me to fix the problem. > > > > Zsolt > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: more spam since upgrade > > > > > > > > > Hi List. > > > > > > I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1 > > > > > > The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased > > dramatically. > > > > > > The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading. > > > > > > Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it > > > originates. > > > > > > Any ideas would be appreciated. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: Tom Theroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:26:30 + > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > X-Priority: 3 > > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. > > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. > > > X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 196.4.87.24 > > > X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: US Students email list > > > Content-Type: multipart/related; > > > type="multipart/alternative"; > > > boundary="=_NextPart_000__AC8AFB96.13499A18" > > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on jp-mx-1 > > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.4 > > > tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, > > > > > > > HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,INVALID_TZ_GMT,URIBL_SBL, > > > URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.0 > > > X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:32 +0200) > > > > > > > > > <> > > > > > > > > > >
Re: more spam since upgrade [Scanned]
On 10/6/04 5:56 AM, "Darren Coleman" wrote: > I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with > your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and > have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result. > > - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If > not why not? :) > - Have you verified that your configuration is correct and working? > (spamassassin --lint) We too are seeing a small percentage (I mean small) of spam or what I would call spam getting past, seems the scores are lower, we are set at 5 and most of the questionable stuff is like 4.3 and such, also we seem to be getting time-outs which would account for the spam (Working on that issue), and are not running any additional rules at the moment as we wanted to see just how effective the new SA 3.0 is (Which I am impressed with). I would like to add more rules, but not sure what to add that isn't already being handled by SA? The www.rulesemporium.com does mention what SA has added though is still a little vague on what all has been integrated into SA and with the timeouts not really wanting to place more on SA until resolved. Have some of the rules been set with lower values with the new SA? I remember reading on the list that this may be the case to balance out all the other rules in place. Still very impressed with this latest release! Thanks! -- David Thurman The Web Presence Group http://www.the-presence.com Web Development/E-Commerce/CMS/Hosting/Dedicated Servers 800-399-6441/309-679-0774
RE: more spam since upgrade
Is the last line meant as some kind of threat? :) I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result. - Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ? If not why not? :) - Have you verified that your configuration is correct and working? (spamassassin --lint) That's a good starting point. Regards, Daz > -Original Message- > From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 October 2004 11:47 > To: Spamassassin > Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade > > Hi, > > since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most of > them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'), > Xenis > (I replaced 'P' with 'X') are not found either in Subject or in Body. > > I will go back to 2.63 unless somebody can help me to fix the problem. > > Zsolt > > > -Original Message- > > From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: more spam since upgrade > > > > > > Hi List. > > > > I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1 > > > > The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased > dramatically. > > > > The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading. > > > > Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it > > originates. > > > > Any ideas would be appreciated. > > > > Regards > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Tom Theroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:26:30 + > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > X-Priority: 3 > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. > > X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 196.4.87.24 > > X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: US Students email list > > Content-Type: multipart/related; > > type="multipart/alternative"; > > boundary="=_NextPart_000__AC8AFB96.13499A18" > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on jp-mx-1 > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.4 > > tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, > > > > HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,INVALID_TZ_GMT,URIBL_SBL, > > URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.0 > > X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:32 +0200) > > > > > > <> > > > > >
RE: more spam since upgrade
Hi, since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most of them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'), Xenis (I replaced 'P' with 'X') are not found either in Subject or in Body. I will go back to 2.63 unless somebody can help me to fix the problem. Zsolt > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: more spam since upgrade > > > Hi List. > > I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1 > > The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased dramatically. > > The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading. > > Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it > originates. > > Any ideas would be appreciated. > > Regards > > Tom > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Tom Theroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:26:30 + > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. > X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 196.4.87.24 > X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: US Students email list > Content-Type: multipart/related; > type="multipart/alternative"; > boundary="=_NextPart_000__AC8AFB96.13499A18" > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on jp-mx-1 > X-Spam-Level: *** > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.4 > tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, > > HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,INVALID_TZ_GMT,URIBL_SBL, > URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.0 > X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:32 +0200) > > > <> > >
