Hi guys,
could you please try to verify whether the following potential bug in SA 2.40-
cvs is still present in current versions?
I received the following e-mail message and noticed dozens of 'charset="US-
ASCII"' headers in the *body* of the message. Upon further inspection I
noticed that the
Hello!
I'm currently test spamassassin (spamd/spamc) to see if we should
implement it sitewide here. Is there a way to log how many mails that
spamassassin tags as spam and how many that aren't counted as spam. If
it's possible I also want to log the score so we can have our own little
high score
i have observed numbers in the range of 50% spam for several
enterprises measured over the day.
i use amavisd and postfix for this purpose.
i set loglevel=3 in /etc/amavisd.conf.
then here's a shell script that computes it:
#!/bin/sh
log=/s3/amavis/amavis.log
spamin=`grep $1 $log | grep "spam
I'm having a pretty bad mail loop problem, which appears rooted in the
.forward procmail spamc setup. It's an occasional problem, but when it
happens it's bad. I don't know what kicks it off, but I have to manually
intervene to break a mail loop in my server systems.
Here's a message I find
I am running a RedHat Beta that includes Sendmail and Spamassassin.
Spamassassin can be started as a service spamd.
I simply need to know how to integrate it into sendmail. Do I add something to
my sendmail.cf ?
Is there more I need to do?
I would certainly appreciate the assistance.
Than
You know, I was just looking at that this morning.. if you're familiar with
MRTG, this might be of use to you..
http://users.2z.net/rpuhek/scripts_public/spamd/
I haven't actually set it up yet, but it doesn't look too terribly
difficult. Besides, MRTG graphs are pretty. :-)
- Original Mess
I believe this is a result of calling procmail from within procmail.
Current distributions of sendmail are configured for procmail to be used
as the default delivery agent. Adding a call to procmail in your .forward
file, which has already been read by procmail, just means that procmail
gets
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 10:42:05AM +0200, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> could you please try to verify whether the following potential bug in SA 2.40-
> cvs is still present in current versions?
Is there a bug filed about this? Did you attach the message to the bug?
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 11:47:41AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> Current distributions of sendmail are configured for procmail to be used
> as the default delivery agent. Adding a call to procmail in your .forward
> file, which has already been read by procmail, just means that procmail
> gets c
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:07:32 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 10:42:05AM +0200, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>> could you please try to verify whether the following potential bug in SA =
>2.40-
>> cvs is still present in current versions?
>
>Is there a bug filed about this? Did
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 08:54:16PM +0200, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> No, I fear I didn't file a bug because I'm not even sure it's a bug on SA's
> side. I was hoping that someone could comment on whether this appears to be a SA
> bug or a bug on the sender's side...
Well, if SA is taking a long
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:00:35 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 08:54:16PM +0200, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>> No, I fear I didn't file a bug because I'm not even sure it's a bug on SA=
>'s=20
>> side. I was hoping that someone could comment on whether this appears to =
>be a SA
If this were the issue wouldn't I have the problem at hand constantly,
instead of randomly as I appear to? For instance, I didn't change any
configurations at all after my problem this morning, I just cleaned the
queues and restarted spamd/sendmail.
At 14:06 09/29/2002 -0400, Theo Van Dinter
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> The problem is that I don't have a copy of the "virgin" (read "original")
> message at the time it was received by Exim. I only have the "mangled" version
> after processing with SA.
Define "mangled"? It should only have some
Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> The problem is that I don't have a copy of the "virgin" (read "original")
> message at the time it was received by Exim. I only have the "mangled" version
I also got two of those messages and wondered whether this might be a
bug in SA. Fortunately, I can look at the or
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 11:45:21PM +0200, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> I also got two of those messages and wondered whether this might be a
> bug in SA. Fortunately, I can look at the original messages.
> Both messages already contained the repeated Content-Type lines before I
> got them from my inbox on
Just got this from a spammer:
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ignore the "@hotmail", and you get "To: Clogged Septic Tank Owner". Hehe.
--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the
17 matches
Mail list logo
