On Friday 22 November 2002 11:08 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've setup another server to try out version 2.5.0. I already trained
> it to identify spam but not yet non-spam messages. How do I know it's
> working?
You can't, not until you train it with a non-spam corpus as well. How
t
Is it OK to run sa-learn-spam and sa-learn-nonspam on messages that include
spamassassin markup (just headers, no body reports)? Or is bayes going to
start turning SA headers into tokens and potentially getting strange
results?
While I'm at it, does mass-check ignore SA markup or do I need to remo
Ronald Wiplinger wrote:
Tom,
I still want to give it a try.
I use sendmail and procmail uses spamd
tmda wants also in procmail, and I have no idea if that can be done,
just by putting the suggested procmail of tmda after the existing lines
of spamd. If yes, than I can go to the next level.
I d
Hi.
I use the spamassassin that folows SuSE 8.1, and have problems getting SA to
work.
I I manually enter the command spamc < spam.msg, it is working fine.
I use the Kmail.
erik@eurit:~/Documents> spamc < spam.msg
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 23 04:40:31 2002
Received: from mail.servermarket
Dark Alchemist said:
> spamc[2982]: spamd responded with bad string 'Number of lines: 16'
>
> The number of lines has went to 8x before and its in my maillog. Does
> it with passed or spam messages.
Razor-agents bug. upgrade to Razor v2.22 (just released).
--j.
Justin Mason wrote:
>
> Dark Alchemist said:
>
> > spamc[2982]: spamd responded with bad string 'Number of lines: 16'
> >
> > The number of lines has went to 8x before and its in my maillog. Does
> > it with passed or spam messages.
>
> Razor-agents bug. upgrade to Razor v2.22 (just released).
Hi,
I use spamassassin 2.43 integrated with mailscanner. Mailscanner only
permits spamassassin to take a certain (user definable) amount of time over
each message being scanned. After some experimentation I determined that
the MX checks done by spamassassin where causing serious delays in
pro
Dark Alchemist wrote:
>
> I noticed a few people on the net and 1 in this group and now me that
> have to use spamd with the -D debug option on or our messages are never
> parsed. Is there a reason for this as it makes the maillog quite large.
>
> I tried everything I could think of over here to
if hits <= 5 do not touch
if hits >5 and hits < 15 tag as possible spam
if hits > 15 its spam now shove it in the garbage can of /dev/null
Can that be done and if so how?
Thanks.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek
I use a procmail recipe that checks the X-Spam-Level flag, something like
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
Non-spam doesn't have an X-Spam-level header.
Spam with less than nine stars (what I'm using) gets delivered because it
doesn't match the procmail recipe.
Spam with nine or
Dark Alchemist wrote:
if hits <= 5 do not touch
if hits >5 and hits < 15 tag as possible spam
if hits > 15 its spam now shove it in the garbage can of /dev/null
Can that be done and if so how?
Thanks.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:Th
Rich Duzenbury wrote:
>
> I use a procmail recipe that checks the X-Spam-Level flag, something like
>
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
> /dev/null
>
> Non-spam doesn't have an X-Spam-level header.
> Spam with less than nine stars (what I'm using) gets delivered because it
> doesn't mat
Tom Allison wrote:
>
> Dark Alchemist wrote:
> > if hits <= 5 do not touch
> > if hits >5 and hits < 15 tag as possible spam
> > if hits > 15 its spam now shove it in the garbage can of /dev/null
> >
> >
> > Can that be done and if so how?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > --
Amavisd-new let's you do this. http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Joseph Ryan Hoot
Network Penguin
Senior Systems Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 323-692-4043
Mobile: 818-209-3260
www.networkpenguin.com
GnuPG 260A7FED
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Original Message-
F
Hi
I use SuSE 7.2, Postfix, Procmail, fetchmail, Spamassassin 2.43 ,
HTML-Parser 3.26, Perl 5.6.
Spamassassin config is standard.
I use a .forward in the home directory: "| /usr/bin/procmail -t"
And a .procmailrc::0fw
| /usr/bin/spamassassin
Dark Alchemist wrote:
Rich Duzenbury wrote:
I use a procmail recipe that checks the X-Spam-Level flag, something like
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
Non-spam doesn't have an X-Spam-level header.
Spam with less than nine stars (what I'm using) gets delivered because it
doesn't
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:12:29PM -0600, Dark Alchemist wrote:
> Basically I want it to let all below my threshold come trough untouched,
> from threshold to 14 mark it as possible spam and 14+ junk it.
Ok, I know this will be an unpopular suggestion among some -
but you will some day regret you
Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:12:29PM -0600, Dark Alchemist wrote:
> > Basically I want it to let all below my threshold come trough untouched,
> > from threshold to 14 mark it as possible spam and 14+ junk it.
>
> Ok, I know this will be an unpopular suggestion among some
Get your Free Samples NOW!
http://click.greatfamilyoffers.com/sp/t.pl?id=36943:38661424
_
Remove yourself from this recurring list by sending a blank email to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OR Sending a postal mail to Customer Service, 364 Patteson Dri
Procmail. You can set up recipes to sort based on the score.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Dark Alchemist wrote:
> if hits <= 5 do not touch
> if hits >5 and hits < 15 tag as possible spam
> if hits > 15 its spam now shove it in the garbage can of /dev/null
>
>
> Can that be done and if so how?
>
> Th
Actually, there was a bug in a previous version of procmail. If you can
get procmail 3.22 or better, you'll probably get away from the mail
corruption.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Benjamin Zöller wrote:
> Hi
> I use SuSE 7.2, Postfix, Procmail, fetchmail, Spamassassin 2.43 ,
> HTML-Parser 3.26, Perl
On Saturday, Nov 23, 2002, at 13:41 US/Pacific, Dark Alchemist wrote:
if hits <= 5 do not touch
if hits >5 and hits < 15 tag as possible spam
if hits > 15 its spam now shove it in the garbage can of /dev/null
Can that be done and if so how?
Since someone else mentioned that Amavisd lets you
On Monday 18 November 2002 03:09 am, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Matthew Cline said the following on 16/11/02 03:14:
> > Anyone know some forums or mailing lists where spammers discuss
> > their trade? I'd like to take a look at some of them, just out of
> > curiosity.
>
> There's Clickz.com, but I thi
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:35:59AM +0100, Benjamin Zöller wrote:
> Spamassassin config is standard.
>
> I use a .forward in the home directory: "| /usr/bin/procmail -t"
> And a .procmailrc::0fw
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
>
I just wanted to get the word out that pop3proxy (written by Dan
McDonald and Johan Lindstrom) is now in CVS. It runs on both Linux
and Win32 and (there's a simple GUI and installer available for
Win32). It requires ActiveState Perl, Inno Setup, and some other
stuff to build the full Win32 releas
Now, I got the same thing, but since my threshold is set to 5.0, it got
listed as spam.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Dark Alchemist wrote:
> Get your Free Samples NOW!
>
> http://click.greatfamilyoffers.com/sp/t.pl?id=36943:38661424
>
>
> _
>
> Remove
Mike Burger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/23/02 at 23:48:
> Now, I got the same thing, but since my threshold is set to 5.0, it got
> listed as spam.
Since I whitelist this mailing list, as I do for all my mailing lists, it
came thru for me. Personally, I like the way the subject lin
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:52:43PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> And to round-out the different SA avenues, I have no idea what
> mime-defang's options around this are. Anyone else know?
You can elect to bounce or quarantine the message after comparing
the score returned from calling spam_assassin_che
On Saturday, Nov 23, 2002, at 17:08 US/Pacific, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:12:29PM -0600, Dark Alchemist wrote:
Basically I want it to let all below my threshold come trough
untouched,
from threshold to 14 mark it as possible spam and 14+ junk it.
Ok, I know this will b
29 matches
Mail list logo
