On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:52:32PM -0800, John Beck wrote:
>
> So, does the above code have any real benefit? Clearly for me, who does
> not use the add-addr-to-* options but does send from localhost, it is
> detrimental and will shortly be removed from my local tree unless someone
> points out s
I found the check_whitelist tool very convenient for examining who had sent
me mail and what scores they had earned. But I often found myself wanting
to study certain individuals and/or domains, and sometimes to use the same
as --clean fodder. So I extended the script to understand the new option
Greetings,
(Although I have used SA for almost three years, I have only just joined
the users and dev lists; apologies if I misread protocol about how to
report something like this.)
I have really enjoyed the auto-white-listing feature since I upgraded
from 2.6 to 3.0 a month ago. But studying t
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4073
Summary: DNSBL lookup not working, SA spews error messages on
STDERR
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3616
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 11:16 ---
I like Scott's suggestion. But it applies to SPF in general, not just neutral
SPF records.
E.g. a +all should be scored differently than a +ip4, just as a
?all s
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 10:41 ---
hi Dallas -- strace -f output would be handy, if at all possible. you'd have to
catch it *before* it hangs, of course... ;)
--- You are receiving this mail
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3822
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 10:39 ---
yeah, will do. here's what I plan to do:
1. run the check from Makefile.PL
2. *also* make the check available as a script that can be
run post-build, called "
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 10:26 ---
okay.. box #2, dual p3's, experiencing the same problem. when spamd stops
taking CHECKs, the spamc processes just continue to build and spamd never logs
any incom
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3489
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3010
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 07:59 ---
Removing the /TV[pq]QAA[MI]EAA[8A]A/ pattern from Spamassassin has
been a very bad decision, because it pattern saved me from getting
all that windows crap. Lo
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3822
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 02:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=2600)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2600&action=view)
Fifth false positive
--- You are receiving this
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 02:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=2599)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2599&action=view)
Fourth false positive
--- You are receiving this
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-11 02:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=2598)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2598&action=view)
Third false positive
--- You are receiving this
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3856
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3529
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2397
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-10 23:30 ---
> Great! Can you please submit an Individual CLA as well? We need that
> too.
Sure! I have submitted it by facsimile, please check.
best,
Tran
--- You
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-10 23:19 ---
> Great! Can you please submit an Individual CLA as well? We need that
> too.
Sure!
I have submit it. Please check.
best,
Tran
--- You are receiving th
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4024
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-10 21:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=2597)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2597&action=view)
patch against trunk
--- You are receiving this m
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4024
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-10 20:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=2596)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2596&action=view)
patch against 3.0
--- You are receiving this mai
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3772
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
> >> oh good, so you've changed your mind since
> >> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id781#c3 then ;)
>
> >Somewhat. I still think it should be a plugin.
>
> There's a problem with plugins I hadn't realized when
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
> I'd like to make IP_IN_RESERVED_RANGE go away. In an ideal world, but I
> know Justin will object so I won't propose it, I would nuke it. Since
> it's possible some poor unsuspecting third-party plugin is using it in
> the s
I'd like to make IP_IN_RESERVED_RANGE go away. In an ideal world, but I
know Justin will object so I won't propose it, I would nuke it. Since
it's possible some poor unsuspecting third-party plugin is using it in
the same brokey was as our code was just yesterday, I propose we merely
set it equal
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4024
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-10 16:34 ---
Subject: Re: SPF and X-Envelope-From and sendmail
The current code won't use the headers, regardless of where they are, if
it finds an X-Sender header and a fet
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4068
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-10 16:11 ---
I'm familiar with the different line termination character sequences that UNIX
and Windows platforms use to create files. However, these RFCs only specify how
mess
27 matches
Mail list logo
