Re: [SAtalk] Assistance with SpamAssassin Configuration

On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:20:30AM -0600, gs-list wrote: > I have installed SpamAssassin 2.43 on my primary mailserver in a sitewide > configuration, so it filters all inbound mail on my server. > > a user preferences file. I first set the SPAMD_ARGS to include a -c which, > according to the man

[SAtalk] Re: Assistance with SpamAssassin Configuration

I'm sorry, I should have clarified that in my original post. I'm using sendmail as the MTA. I have the spamass-milter sock generated in a startup script, and an entry in my sendmail.cf file pointing to the spamass-milter sock. Thanks again, Gregg At 01:48 AM 12/21/2002 -0500, Theo Van Dinter w

[SAtalk] Assistance with SpamAssassin Configuration

Greetings fellow SpamAssassins: I have installed SpamAssassin 2.43 on my primary mailserver in a sitewide configuration, so it filters all inbound mail on my server. I am having some difficulty with the SpamAssassin per-user preferences configuration. I have attempted, in assorted methods, to

Re: [SAtalk] Re: [AMaViS-user] SA 2.50 and AWL

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:21:35PM -0500, Tom Allison wrote: > I've heard differently from the bogofilter mailing list. I > personally am starting to conclude that bayesian filtering is very > difficult to get working correctly. It is too easy to skew the > statistics and therefore pass the fi

RE: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, December 20, 2002 10:02 PM Theo Van Dinter wrote: > I don't think there's a "foreground/background is the same" test in > 2.50, but there are a bunch of HTML-related rules, they check for > things like the rat

Re: [SAtalk] false positive - please add to "nonspam" corpus

On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 09:39:17PM -0500, James R. Van Zandt wrote: > The announcement of Debian 3.0r1 was labeled as spam, with these hits: > > Anyway, I'd appreciate your adding this to your "nonspam" corpus. > (I hope you don't mind the attachment.) Hrm. 2.43: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 req

Re: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

well, if the message that you posted was complete, there wasn't a BODY tag.. so text would default to the system default. And the whole message seemed to be made out of images. (well and the html to load the image) You could always up the score for html only messages.. but then I bet your false p

Re: [SAtalk] false positive - please add to "nonspam" corpus

On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 09:39:17PM -0500, James R. Van Zandt wrote: > > The announcement of Debian 3.0r1 was labeled as spam, with these hits: > > SPAM: Hit! (2.7 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list > SPAM: Hit! (2.4 points) BODY: No such thing as a free lunch (2) > SPAM: Hit!

[SAtalk] false positive - please add to "nonspam" corpus

The announcement of Debian 3.0r1 was labeled as spam, with these hits: SPAM: Hit! (2.7 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list SPAM: Hit! (2.4 points) BODY: No such thing as a free lunch (2) SPAM: Hit! (1.8 points) No MX records for the From: domain The mentions of "free" had to

Re: [SAtalk] Problem with all_spam_to

On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 09:12:33PM +, Justin Mason wrote: > It can pick up *some* of them: here's the list we use (from the code): > >$self->get ('Resent-To') . # std, rfc822 >$self->get ('Resent-Cc')); # std, rfc822 > > $self->get ('To') .

Re: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:21:57PM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote: > I see. Ok, well, what about the actual message; the fact that it's blank and that >it isn't being picked up by SA? Doesn't SA have a rule for white text on white >background? Well, the copy that you posted before was munged, so

RE: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > -Original Message- > What to do about it? Nothing? I personally don't see it as important > enough to do anything about. I see. Ok, well, what about the actual message; the fact that it's blank and that it isn't being picked up by SA?

Re: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:34:34PM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote: > I don't get it. Why would they put my "encrypted" email address in some strange >header? Is it to add "noise" so that traditional filters won't catch it? The bigger >question: what the heck do I do about this? It's "personalize

Re: [SAtalk] spamproxyd

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 07:28:10PM -0500, Tom Allison wrote: > What ever happened to spamproxyd? I don't know much about it, but the code is still there in 2.50. > Is it still supported? I assume... -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Even my usual 'careful' is not very careful by other peoples

[SAtalk] Re: [AMaViS-user] SA 2.50 and AWL

Mark Martinec wrote: Tom, - AWL is supposed to be per-recipient. Each recipient has its own automatically updated whitelist. My assumption is this: Blacklists against spammers are universal. - amavisd-new has no way of telling SA what the envelope recipients are (SA can only guess that

[SAtalk] Re: [AMaViS-user] SA 2.50 and AWL

Tom, | > Turning on SA auto whitelists is presently not useful | > with amavisd-new. There is a fundamental problem in that | > SpamAssassin is geared to work fine with one-recipient- | > -at-a-time messages, and amavisd-new tries to process | > multi-recipient messages in one go if at all possibl

RE: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > -Original Message- > From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 6:32 PM > To: Mike Loiterman > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002

Re: [SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:11:04PM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote: > X-Rot-Version: zvxr^nfpraqrapl(arg > > Two other questions...shouldn't these messages be listed in Razor1, 2 or dcc? Also >I noticed the header X-Rot-Version. What is that? That seems to be a common element. Congrats, you've be

[SAtalk] spamproxyd

What ever happened to spamproxyd? I am having a little trouble finding any "activity" on it. Is it still supported? -- "All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory..." (By Larry Wall) --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by:

[SAtalk] Subject with blank (hidden) body

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I seem to be getting a lot of messages with just a Subject and a blank body, or what appears to be a blank body. If you look at the message in Outlook nothing appears in the body, but I have a utility that lets you view the html as well, in ther

[SAtalk] Re: [AMaViS-user] SA 2.50 and AWL

Mark Martinec wrote: Tom, | I'm trying to get SA 2.50 working under the amavisd-new release. | It's working, I think. At least according to the logs. | Between the two, there is a marked increase in performance. | Very nice! | But there is no WhiteList. | Any suggestions on how to get this turn

[SAtalk] Re: [AMaViS-user] SA 2.50 and AWL

Tom, | I'm trying to get SA 2.50 working under the amavisd-new release. | It's working, I think. At least according to the logs. | Between the two, there is a marked increase in performance. | Very nice! | But there is no WhiteList. | Any suggestions on how to get this turned on? Turning on SA

[SAtalk] SA 2.50 and AWL

I'm trying to get SA 2.50 working under the amavisd-new release. It's working, I think. At least according to the logs. Between the two, there is a marked increase in performance. Very nice! But there is no WhiteList. Any suggestions on how to get this turned on? Unfortunately the debug line

RE: [SAtalk] 2.50 question

Classification: PUBLIC In a sitewide config I run: Postfix v1.1.11 Procmail v3.15.2 (Most stable version) Hardin's html-trap recipe v1.136 SpamAssassin v2.43 Razor2 v2.20 Pyzor v0.4.0 DCCProc v1.1.15 All works well. Only issue is sometimes SPAMD daemon quits. I understand this is fixed in the v

RE: [SAtalk] URL for collected spam corpus?

Matthew, > http://www.spamarchive.org that was it. thx. chris --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: The Best Geek Holiday Gifts! Time is running out! Thinkgeek.com has the coolest gifts for your favorite geek. Let your fingers do the typ

Re: [SAtalk] false positive - please add to "nonspam" corpus

Hmm you're report regards SpamAssassin 2.20, a rather old version of SA to say the least, Using the current release version of spamassassin (2.43) I get a negative score for this mailing. In the future, please realize that if you're running an old version of SA, you should test against a semi-r

Re: [SAtalk] URL for collected spam corpus?

http://www.spamarchive.org * Chris Markle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > folks - saw a link (maybe on this list???) a few weeks ago about a new > organization that was collecting spam examples, samples, or what-not. > When I went to the site it was totally under contstruction and yielded > no mea

Re: [SAtalk] 2.50 question

> "TVD" == Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: TVD> One is the timeout override, another is that Razor2 clears $PATH to be TVD> "taint friendly", but that makes autodetection of things like dcc and TVD> pyzor break for us. It's a side effect of Razor2 not being front-end I don't know

[SAtalk] URL for collected spam corpus?

folks - saw a link (maybe on this list???) a few weeks ago about a new organization that was collecting spam examples, samples, or what-not. When I went to the site it was totally under contstruction and yielded no meaningfull information, but maybe now it would. Doh - didn't save the URL. Anyo

[SAtalk] Always insert spam info headers???

I'm looking for a way to always have spamassassin add the "X-Spam-Satus:" info headers into the mail msg. I'm using Postfix + Amavisd-new and have the following values configured in /etc/amavisd.conf: $sa_tag_level_deflt = -200.1; $sa_kill_level_deflt = 5.0; Is there another way this can/sh

RE: [SAtalk] startup script for SA on Redhat 8

Classification: PUBLIC My start script looks like this: Use chkconfig --add to run at startup... - #!/bin/sh # # spamassassin This script starts and stops the spamd daemon # # chkconfig: 2345 80 30 # # description: spamd is a daemon process which uses SpamAssassin to check #

Re: [SAtalk] startup script for SA on Redhat 8

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Thomas Kinghorn wrote: > I have tried the one that comes with SpamAssassin 2.43 but it doesn't work. > > ./redhat-rc-script.sh start > ./redhat-rc-script.sh: line 9: my: command not found > ./redhat-rc-script.sh: line 10: my: command not found > ./redhat-r

Re: [SAtalk] 2.50 question

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:03:29AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: > Razor2 seems to override timeouts set by SA (supposedly worked-around > in the next SA). Razor2 is not taint-mode safe (without the two Razor > patches posted on the amavisd-new site). Yeah, SA 2.40 and later support razor2. The earl

Re: [SAtalk] startup script for SA on Redhat 8

On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 04:14, Thomas Kinghorn wrote: > Does anyone have a startup script for redhat 8? > > I have tried the one that comes with SpamAssassin 2.43 but it doesn't work. > > ./redhat-rc-script.sh start > ./redhat-rc-script.sh: line 9: my: command not found > ./redhat-rc-script.sh: lin

Re: [SAtalk] 2.50 question

> "TA" == Tom Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: TA> From what I've been able to find on the amavisd-new website I TA> have a lot of patching to do on their stuff in order to get it TA> working. Well, the author could simplify it by rolling a new release with those patches pre-installed.

Re: [SAtalk] 2.50 question

SA Had a problem with Razor2 (if you can call it a problem) when Razor2 first came out. Basically, (If I remember correctly) SA's problem was, it didn;t support Razor2, because the SA-Devel team was testing Razor2 first to make sure that Razor2 would play nice with SA. The first couple of release

[SAtalk] 2.50 question

My apologies if this was already addressed, I have been skipping most of the 2.50 discussion as, at the time, I didn't think I needed to follow all the development issues... But that was then... I'm trying to get amavisd-new and spamassassin to play together. From what I've been able to find o

Re: [SAtalk] Weird false negative

Ives Aerts wrote: > Which version was that? I'm using SA 2.43; eagerly awaiting the 2.50 > release... Umm the version was in the headers I posted ;) 2.43 D. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: The Best Geek Holiday Gifts! Time is running

Re: [SAtalk] startup script for SA on Redhat 8

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Thomas Kinghorn wrote: >Does anyone have a startup script for redhat 8? > >I have tried the one that comes with SpamAssassin 2.43 but it doesn't work. > >./redhat-rc-script.sh start >./redhat-rc-script.sh: line 9: my: command not found >./redhat-rc-script.s

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin slow running from Procmail

On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:32:48AM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote: >Michael Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> While I was downloading mail tonight, ps -ef|grep procmail returned 90 >> procmail -f processes running. It took about 20 minutes to process >> all of those messages. > >Running fewer

Re: [SAtalk] Problem with all_spam_to

Tony L. Svanstrom said: > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 the voices made Justin Mason write: > > JM> If anyone can suggest others added by other MTAs, it'd be much appreciate > d. > > With some luck you can get the env-address out of one of the Received-header > s. Yeah, I've just added some code to do t

Re: [SAtalk] Weird false negative

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:01:08AM +, Drav Sloan wrote: > Ives Aerts wrote: > > I was *very* surprised that the attached spam, although seeming quite > > obvious, only scored 4.8. Strange... > > I recieved the same spam (diff subject/sender/rcipient/to/from): > That seemed to score much higher

Re: [SAtalk] Weird false negative

Ives Aerts wrote: > I was *very* surprised that the attached spam, although seeming quite > obvious, only scored 4.8. Strange... I recieved the same spam (diff subject/sender/rcipient/to/from): That seemed to score much higher: X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=15.3 required=5.0 tests=CALL_FREE,FO

[SAtalk] startup script for SA on Redhat 8

Does anyone have a startup script for redhat 8? I have tried the one that comes with SpamAssassin 2.43 but it doesn't work. ./redhat-rc-script.sh start ./redhat-rc-script.sh: line 9: my: command not found ./redhat-rc-script.sh: line 10: my: command not found ./redhat-rc-script.sh: line 11: my: co

[SAtalk] Weird false negative

I was *very* surprised that the attached spam, although seeming quite obvious, only scored 4.8. Strange... Anyway, I shouldn't forget to send my best wishes to the whole SA community. Thanks for a superb piece of software which makes my life a whole lot more enjoyable! Cheers, -Ives _