Hi,
I get a couple of mass-mailed newsletters that get mangled by
SpamAssassin. SA is the only filter I'm running, so it must be
responsible... it is possible that there is something that I can change in
the config that would fix this. I'm using Outlook Express as my mail reader.
The symptom
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 09:00:48PM -0600, Richie Laager wrote:
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| Hash: SHA1
|
| Is it possible to have SpamAssassin take different actions
| based on the message's rating? For example, if the message was
| from 5 to 7, flag it. If it's from 7 to 9, flag it a
Hi
We've got a white-list, but how about a black list? I've had 2 bits of
spam today that weren't picked up by SA2.01, scored 3.0 and 4.6 on
default settings. I haven't got a problem in just adding these manually
to a black-list.
Incidentally, do you want the spam posted to the list? I can't bou
There's a blacklist there already. Just use blacklist_from x
instead of whitelist_from in your config file.
C
On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 10:45, Matthew Dickinson wrote:
> Hi
>
> We've got a white-list, but how about a black list? I've had 2 bits of
> spam today that weren't picked up by SA2.01,
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> I get a couple of mass-mailed newsletters that get mangled by
> SpamAssassin. SA is the only filter I'm running, so it must be
> responsible... it is possible that there is something that I can change
> in the config that would fix this. I'm using O
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> I get a couple of mass-mailed newsletters that get mangled by
> SpamAssassin. SA is the only filter I'm running, so it must be
> responsible... it is possible that there is something that I can change in
> the config that would fix this. I'm using O
From: "Charlie Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
>
> > I get a couple of mass-mailed newsletters that get mangled by
> > SpamAssassin. SA is the only filter I'm running, so it must be
> > responsible... it is possible that there is something that I can chan
Hello.
I just installed SpamAssasin for the first time and have
installed the Spamass-Milter with Sendmail 8.12.2. All
seems to be working:
415 ? S 0:00 sendmail: accepting connections
427 ? S 0:00 sendmail: Queue runner@00:15:00 for
/var/spool/clientmqueue
460 ? S 0:00 /usr/local/bin/s
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> {
> :0:
> | perl -I../www/blognet/lib ../spamassassin -c ~/.spamassassin -P >>
> kid
>
>
> }
Have you noticed if you are receiving multiple
messages at the same time when the corruption
occurs? As if one is being processed while a
The problem is in your procmail recipe. You need a lockfile, or else
two spamassassin running at the same time could both be simulatneously
redirecting to your "kid" mailbox, interleaving their contents. Change
the first line to:
:0:
and you should be fixed.
On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 13:10, Kevin
Shouldn't the lockfile on the -inner- portion be sufficient? I believe it
should. However ... there may be another problem.
Look at this bit from procmailex(5):
] In order to make sure the lockfile is not removed until the pipe has
] finished, you have to specify option `w'; otherwise the lockfi
On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 13:45, Charlie Watts wrote:
> Shouldn't the lockfile on the -inner- portion be sufficient? I believe it
> should. However ... there may be another problem.
Ooops, didn't see that -- agree on the "w" flag though.
> However, if it only happens to those particular messages, pe
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Mike Grau wrote:
> My question is - is SpammAssassin ready "out of the box" to
> differentiate between spam and non-spam "99.94%" of the cases or do I
> need customized rules. The reason I ask is because I sent myself obvious
> spam (free mortgage quote) and could only get a
> I'd think that changing the existing ":0:" to be ":0 w:" should be
> sufficient.
I'll do this, but I don't think this is a multiple writers issue, given the
consistency with certain messages having this problem. (I don't get *that*
much mail that I have lots trying to come in at the same time :
The other thing I'd suggest is to let procmail deliver the mail, rather
than having the shell do it (using the redirect to the mbox method), ie
something like:
:0
* $RECIP ?? ^^kid@$DOMAIN
{
:0fw
| perl -I../www/blognet/lib ../spamassassin -c ~/.spamassassin
-P
:0:
On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 13:51, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Mike Grau wrote:
>
> > My question is - is SpammAssassin ready "out of the box" to
> > differentiate between spam and non-spam "99.94%" of the cases or do I
> > need customized rules. The reason I ask is because I sent mysel
On 16 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 13:51, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > Then again, tools like the DNS blacklists and Razor can bring that number
> > up a bit.
>
> These do push false negatives, but they also increase false-positives,
> depending on which RBLs you use. I run
I've managed to make/compile the 2.01 release under SunOS 5.7, after
changing the compiler to gcc from cc (cc doesn't like C++ // comments in C
files). Now, what is the recommended way to begin using SpamAssassin for
my personal account only without a "make install", since that requires
root pr
Modifying the site-wide config requires killing and restarting spamd, which
risks missing some mail or killing a running scan. It would be handy if
sending SIGHUP to the parent spamd process would cause it to reload the
rules cleanly. It should leave the listen up, and ideally it would
continue
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Tom Lipkis wrote:
> Modifying the site-wide config requires killing and restarting spamd,
> which risks missing some mail or killing a running scan. It would be
> handy if sending SIGHUP to the parent spamd process would cause it to
> reload the rules cleanly. It should lea
20 matches
Mail list logo
