Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 11:45:21PM +0200, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> > Both messages already contained the repeated Content-Type lines before I
> > got them from my inbox on the mail server.
>
> Hmmm. Returns semi-instantaneously for me on 2.41. Gets a nice
> score too. Thi
Probably better than the "spam phrases" approach would be the database
approach as currently used for white/black listing.
Any way to tie that to an XML retrieval from a list of central repositories?
Does mySQL do replication? A properly done XML would let us eyeball the list
as well as use it to
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:29:08PM -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
> Geez, that's worse than using open relays. To what depths *won't* spammers
> sink to?
None, clearly. It's only a matter of time before they start breaking in to
people's houses to send mail on their computers.
We even had one a
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 04:09:48PM -0500, SpamTalk wrote:
> Shouldn't a list such as this this be a part of the next release in the same
> manner as frequent spam phases?
I'm happy to provide my list, either for just a couple people, or for
inclusion in the distro.
The only problem is that there
I have:
* Mail-SpamAssassin-2.31.tar.gz
[lloy0076@linux lloy0076]% uname -a
Linux linux 2.4.18-SGI_XFS_1.1 #1 Wed Apr 17 11:18:22 CDT 2002 i686
unknown
[lloy0076@linux lloy0076]$ rpm -qa | grep send
sendmail-cf-8.11.2-14
mgetty-sendfax-1.1.25-2
sendmail-8.11.2-14
[lloy0076@linux lloy0076]$ rp
On Monday 30 September 2002 09:20 am, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> These message are being sent by (apparently) exploiting machines that have
> been subjected to a particular virus, or are in some way vulnerable to this
> abuse. I've had two of my dialup users' machines used for this spam in the
> las
Shouldn't a list such as this this be a part of the next release in the same
manner as frequent spam phases?
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Burgess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:45 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] URL blacklist
Daniel Rog
If the forwarding is being done via .forward, why not just use procmail
instead and check the message, then either drop it in your spool dir or
forward it if it's not spam?
If you're using aliases or virtual user tables, you may want to have a look
at one of the milters. I'm not a sendmail guru b
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 13 14:39:43 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Received: (qmail 3665 invoked by uid 507); 13 Sep 2002 14:39:43 -
X-Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by ted.sergeant.org by uid 504 with
qmail-scanner-1.12 (spamassassin: 2.40.
On Monday 30 September 2002 22:06 CET John McCoy, Jr. wrote:
> I'm not sure why but the line numbers very from the source tree to the
> installed spamd.
>
>[...]
>
> These lines seem to get added:
> 2:
> 3: eval 'exec /usr/local/bin/perl -S $0 ${1+"$@"}'
> 4: if 0; # not running under some sh
I'm not sure why but the line numbers very from the source tree to the
installed spamd.
Source tree (after make)
268:warn "accept interrupted: $! $error_before_reaper";
/usr/local/bin (after make install)
271:warn "accept interrupted: $! $error_before_reaper";
These lines se
On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 14:05, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> On Monday 30 September 2002 18:49 CET John McCoy, Jr. wrote:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > > I put the 2.42 tarball up yesterday, and now I'm seeing this:
> > >
> > > Sep 27 11:15:11 lerami.lerctr.org spamd[7185]: info: setuid to ler
> > > succ
On Monday 30 September 2002 18:49 CET John McCoy, Jr. wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > I put the 2.42 tarball up yesterday, and now I'm seeing this:
> >
> > Sep 27 11:15:11 lerami.lerctr.org spamd[7185]: info: setuid to ler
> > succeeded
> > Sep 27 11:15:11 lerami.lerctr.org spamd[7185]: process
Hi all,
I am setting up a new sendmail server to do site-wide spam filtering using
SA/spamd. I have this running successfully for a few accounts, and have
been quite satisfied thusfar. Using procmail as the LDA, I am delivering
the spam on a per-user basis to a special spool area, where it can
Daniel Rogers wrote:
> Personally, I just have some (rather large) body tests in my local.cf with
> bad domains in 'em.
Please post these to the list if they're not already
available somewhere.
Thanks very much
Andy
---
This sf.net email is s
Strangely enough, if I set the -m flag, SA 2.41 will run for a few hours,
but then mysteriously crash with no error messages in the logs. If I run it
without the -m flag, it'll work for days on end.
This is Perl 5.6.1, on Linux 2.4.19. On another system with Perl 5.6.1,
with kernel 2.4.9, I don
> 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 sco
I'm getting this too with 2.42
perl 5.6.1
Sol 7
using qmail-scanner 1.14
Spamd started with:
/usr/local/bin/spamd -d -x -s local3
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Larry Rosenman
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:17 AM
To: [EM
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:32:55AM -0500, Dan Abernathy wrote:
> I'm seeing quite a few porn spams lately that SA is letting through. These
> are text messages with wording "innocent" enough not to trigger SA, but
> peppered with links to terra.es hosted porn sites.
Yeah, I've been getting those
No Danita, you're not the only one. :)
FYI, we do just delete high scoring spam. But we're not an isp so we can take
that chance.
Ellen Clary
Senior System Administrator
Dynamic Graphics
> Danita Zanre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-27 10:10:04 -0600]:
> > As a totally off-topic aside - am I th
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:03:17AM -0400, Chris Leahy wrote:
> Local testing (ie: spamassassin -t spam.txt) yields consistant results.
> Higher as well.
Well, that's not local testing. That's just adding a report.
"spamassassin -L" is local-only.
> Would those reduce the score? A local test yi
Local testing (ie: spamassassin -t spam.txt) yields consistant results.
Higher as well.
Perhaps its the network thing thats being strange.
Would those reduce the score? A local test yields a different score from
a network score.
Is this normal?
>>
>>
>
>Messages should always get the same
Hi,
I tried to install Mail-SpamAssassin-2.41 in my Linux machine for personal
use bu following the instruction in the INSTALL document:
in my home directory:
[unzip/untar the archive]
cd Mail-SpamAssassin-2.41
perl Make.PL PREFIX=~/sausr SYSCONFDIR=~/saetc
make
make install
and then test i
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:29:52AM -0400, Chris Leahy wrote:
> 1. A LOT more spam is getting through undetected.
2.4 has a heavy no-false positive bias. The scores in 2.42 should
help out a bit. :) (I've seen a few more false negatives with 2.4,
but very few...)
> 3. Identical messages yield
Hello all,
I have a FreeBSD machine running sendmail with mailscanner. Mailscanner
is a virus/spam filtering package
that uses Spamassassin.
I was working with SA version 2.20 and it was pretty effective.
I upgraded to 2.41 and now I'm seeing some strange things.
1. A LOT more spam is getting t
Very good point made there :)
I would assume that an RBL score would have to be arbitrary, based on
general reports of false positives etc. I can't really see how it can be
GA derived since, as you say, it would depend entirely on whatever IPs
happened to be in the database when the test was run
> "DQ" == Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DQ> You need to GA score the RBL rules to achieve a good FP:FN ratio.
DQ> Without GA scoring of the RBLs, you will raise your FPs too much
DQ> because the rest of the GA scores are tuned to achieve a good FP:FN
DQ> ratio.
I'm curious how y
> "IRJ" == Ian R Justman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IRJ> However, that I remember, it does not reliably close the session when you
IRJ> issue a QUIT. That is why I went to McGyver's Net::SMTP::Server code.
have you had any luck getting mcgyver to fixup the Net::SMTP::Server
module to allo
I'm seeing quite a few porn spams lately that SA is letting through. These are text
messages with wording "innocent" enough not to trigger SA, but peppered with links to
terra.es hosted porn sites.
Any chance we could have a user-configured blacklist section that checks the body for
URL matche
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:49:24AM +0200, silas wrote:
> when i'm on the server where SA is installed, i send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], it's ok (mail is tagged)
> when i'm not the server, i send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], mail is not
> tagged...
Last time I used qmail-scanner (wich, admitedly,
> Is it possible that qmail-scanner is not called for outgoing mail, but
only
> for incoming mail? In other words, is qmail-scanner a program that is
called
> when mail is coming for local delivery, only, and not for mail going to
the
> outside world?
yeah i think you're right...
when i'm on the
31 matches
Mail list logo
