> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Matt Sergeant said:
>
> > > Basically a spam-check may take up to 10 seconds per mail, so
> > > sendmail should run only a certain number of concurrent deliveries
> > > (20 or so?) and wait for them to complete
Hi,
I'm trying to install Spamassassin on my linux box and get this error
message. I searched the archives for this error and found that someone
suggested that you delete the spamassassin.cf file, but I don't have one.
So if anybody knows how to get around this any help would be appreciated.
mk
Assuming you're using spamd, and have syslogging ending up in /var/log/mail/info, and you're smart enough to deal with rotating logfiles, etc:
fgrep -c 'identified spam' /var/log/mail/info
for the number of spams identified and
fgrep -c 'clean message' /var/log/mail/info
for the num
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Yes, it was the network accesses. We've re-done Razor in-house anyway
> (sorry, but we can't release that code, which is a shame because it
> kicks razor's butt - does n-way replication and multi-tiered servers),
> and will be removing all the DNS check
I updated this morning and hit a snag.
The top most from in the mail header isn't being passed through
now.
For example this is the complete header...
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wkrp.com (wkrp.com [199.6.32.180])
by wkrp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0IE5r3246
I'm setting up another mail system and I'd like to be able to deliver the
site-wide spam to a single maildir, while letting everything else get
delivered by vpopmail.
So far I've been unsuccessful because Procmail seems to want to either deliver
everything or nothing; it doesn't (or rather I d
> I'm setting up another mail system and I'd like to be able to deliver the
> site-wide spam to a single maildir, while letting everything else get
> delivered by vpopmail.
>
> So far I've been unsuccessful because Procmail seems to want to
> either deliver
> everything or nothing; it doesn't (or
> First make sure you have added the "seek.diff" patch to vpopmail so that
> vdeliver can accept multiple pipes. Next change bottom of procmailrc to:
>
Forgot to mention the link to the vpopmail seek patch:
http://www.thesafebox.com/
Here is the discussion regarding it:
http://bluedot.net/m
> I have been using this for about a week now and it works fine.
Thank you, this works beautifully. I had failed to mention that I did have
the seek patch already too. :-)
Now to get the SQL implementation going with my modified spamc and a quick CGI
for the users to turn on/off their filter
> Thank you, this works beautifully. I had failed to mention that
> I did have
> the seek patch already too. :-)
>
> Now to get the SQL implementation going with my modified spamc
> and a quick CGI
> for the users to turn on/off their filtering. Oh yes, and a cron
> job so that
> we only keep t
Hello,
Apparently the latest CVS snapshot I got (as of 8:00 AM CST this morning) is
broken.
Any mails processed by SA are getting the initial From clause (not the From:
part of the mail message) stripped out from it, causing grief in our
mailboxes. I have rolled back to the last CVS I was using
Title: RE: [SAtalk] Bug in NoMailAudit.pm for Spamassassin 2.0
This is on a spamd/spamc setup using qmail and qmail scanner, which then forwards the mail to a mirapoint virus scanning server, which if it finds a "From" header at the beginning of the line, will MANGLE the header.
Thanks
--
We have writing some custom spam rules, and would like your
input
We originally wrote some of these when a blatantly obvious
spam came in with a score of 0
If you could, run them against your mail, and see if it
triggers any false positives..
Thanks
header
CUSTOM_FREE_HD
Hello and thanks for spamassassin! :)
I discovered your package yesterday on the vmailmgr mailing
list, and I'm now using it with qmail+qmail-scanner: works
great!
Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
and it's then
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
> I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
> and it's then scanned twice, so spams are getting two or event
> three *SPAM* in their Subject. Shouldn't
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:53:09PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> > three *SPAM* in their Subject. Shouldn't SA check if
> > there is already a "X-Spam-Flag" line in the headers, and
> > skip the mail if it's the case ? :)
>
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:53:09PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
| On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
| > Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
| > I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
| > and it's then scanned twice, so spams are
Thanks for spamassassin!
Has anyone begun converting the procmail rules here
http://alcor.concordia.ca/topics/email/auto/procmail/spam/reasons/
In particular, there is one that just got through spamassassin-2.0 but
that was caught by this rule from the tag-radical set at the above URL:
[FYI,
Charlie Watts said:
> If we can't get RMS, we can just send the .mp3 of him singing. They'll
> cave in, I'm sure ...
Oh my ghod, the GNU Song. Anything but that! ;)
--j.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This is on a spamd/spamc setup using qmail and qmail scanner, which then
> forwards the mail to a mirapoint virus scanning server, which if it finds a
> "From" header at the beginning of the line, will MANGLE the header.
OK -- we have several people using spamc/spamd w
"Olivier M." said:
> not if a md5 hash or any ID field that identify a spamassassin copy
> would be added to the X-Spam-Flag field or anywhere... What do you
> think?
wouldn't work -- the spammers could just run SpamAssassin, get the
hash, and then do the mail-out.
However it would be possible
> # Hotmail messages have Originating-IP, except mail from abuse/policy.
> :0 Hf
> * ^From:.*@hotmail\.com\>
> * ! ^From:.*\<(postmaster|abuse|policy)@hotmail\.com\>
> * ! ^X-Originating-IP: \[[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\]
> | formail -b -f -A "$trash_header ordinary hotmail invalid
That sounds emminently reasonable, since it's easier to delete the line (with formail or tail +2 or whatever) than add it, and we didn't have enough command line options in spamc anyway :)
C
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 19:35, Justin Mason wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This is on a spam
* Bob Proulx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > # Hotmail messages have Originating-IP, except mail from abuse/policy.
> > :0 Hf
> > * ^From:.*@hotmail\.com\>
> > * ! ^From:.*\<(postmaster|abuse|policy)@hotmail\.com\>
> > * ! ^X-Originating-IP: \[[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\]
> > | for
A legit message triggered the
FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
test. The header is
From: Linda Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What properites of it make you think it is forged? The test appears
to match any hotmail address, legit or not (though I don't really know
what the "=~" operator does).
-D
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:20:29PM -0500, dman wrote:
>
> A legit message triggered the
> FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
> test. The header is
> From: Linda Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What properites of it make you think it is forged? The test appears
> to match any hotmail address, legit
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:22:30PM -0500, Jason Kohles wrote:
| On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:20:29PM -0500, dman wrote:
| >
| > A legit message triggered the
| > FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
| > test. The header is
| > From: Linda Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >
| > What properites of it make y
This controls whether (1) or not (0) a "From " line is required in
the output. Default is 1, because that seems to work better for a
greater number of people ;)
Added to both spamd and spamassassin.
--j.
--
'Justin Mason' => { url => 'http://jmason.org/', blog => 'http://taint.org/' }
__
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:38:48PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:22:30PM -0500, Jason Kohles wrote:
> | On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:20:29PM -0500, dman wrote:
> | >
> | > A legit message triggered the
> | > FROM_FORGED_HOTMAIL
> | > test. The header is
> | > From: Linda
I installed SpamAssassin about a week ago and really love it. However,
I seem to be getting a (presumably) unusally high number of false
positives. I'm up to 21 in the past week, on an input of 1540
messages. (Damn, I am on too many mailing lists.) This is about 1.3%,
which is almost an order of m
> I seem to be getting a (presumably) unusally high number of false
> positives. I'm up to 21 in the past week, on an input of 1540
> messages. (Damn, I am on too many mailing lists.) This is about 1.3%,
I think the list wisdom goes with whitelisting mailing lists. But
then you lose the ability
31 matches
Mail list logo
