Re: [SAtalk] RBL Usage

hi mike if i want to overwrite SA default scoring for its tests, i specify my own scoring on /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin.cf it seems that you put them on local.cf that is why it doesnt work. hth dianne --- Mike McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have the following in my .spamass

Re: [SAtalk] Config Question

hi whitewolf on our setup, we use procmail to send all the tagged messages to /dev/null. i use my own rules and tags as well as SA rules/tags. on procmail recipe, i have this: :0 * ^X-Spam-Status: *(REALLY_UNSAFE_JAVASCRIPT|FAKED_IP_IN_RCVD) /dev/null the above recipe only sends mails that are t

Re: [SAtalk] Config files not configuring anything?

hi johnny my experience is that you need to restart spamd (if you are using that) for the changes to take effect. also, i have a file /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin.cf which lists some of my own scoring for the default SA tests. if i dont agree with SA default score, i put a different score o

Re: [SAtalk] messages from nis.

Morten Arnesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi ! > > i just installed sa on my redhat 7.3 server, and get those msg's in my > syslog everytime spamd is activated: > > pserv[902]: refused connect from 192.168.0.1:1324 to procedure ypproc_match This is probably a configuration problem on your s

Re: [SAtalk] whitelist_from_recv??

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Evan Platt wrote: > >what mean the last two columns in the sintaxis of whitelist_from_recv? > > > >I means, > >whitelist_from_recv *mymail.com mymail.com > > --- -- > >*mymail.com is the mail and the other?.. is the mail server?

RE: [SAtalk] Increase in low scoring spam?

I get quite a bit that scores between 4-5. I lowered my threshold to 4.5 as a result. I think that more and more spammers are running their spam through SA before deploying it to the masses. | -Original Message- | I seem to be receiving a lot more low scoring spam in the last few | days.

[SAtalk] messages from nis.

Hi ! i just installed sa on my redhat 7.3 server, and get those msg's in my syslog everytime spamd is activated: pserv[902]: refused connect from 192.168.0.1:1324 to procedure ypproc_match in my procmailrc i have as fallows: DROPPRIVS=yes :0fw * < 256000 | spamc -d 127.0.0.1 # spam :0: * ^X

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

Tom, (and Hamish), (thanks for your private mail, sounde very useful, I'll reply to it separately) | I use HEADER and not Envelope. There is always one FROM address | in either case and that is what you are really looking for when | you are whitelisting/blacklisting. Just a quick side remark

Re: [SAtalk] whitelist_from_recv??

On 2002-12-21 16:00:34 -0300, Jose M.Herrera wrote: > what mean the last two columns in the sintaxis of whitelist_from_recv? This is explained in the man page. Best regards Martin -- http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/ -

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin slow running from Procmail

On 2002-12-21 11:24:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This brings me to a newbie question. If we're running spamd, is there any > need to even have the spamassassin script? All the man pages seem to > indicate that spamc is a drop-in replacement for the script if you're > running spamd. I jus

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:07 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Theo Van Dinter said: > >> $ tr 'n-za-m' 'a-z' >> zvxr^nfpraqrapl(arg >> mike^ascendency(net >> >> It's probably used for spamcop reports and the like. E

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

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Justin Mason wrote: > some list-sending sites now use per-recipient Message-Ids, From > addresses, Errors-To addresses, etc., and send 1 mail per recipient, in > order to figure out which recipient is bouncing. > > There's also something called VERP, which I think is related,

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

Mark Martinec said: > Although Bayesian works best when it is trained for a particular > user, it is still _very_ useful with a single site-wide database. > Given a larger set of ham/spam messages to train, the lack > of specialization can be compensated to some degree. > > AWL on the other hand

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin slow running from Procmail

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > This brings me to a newbie question. If we're running spamd, is there any > need to even have the spamassassin script? All the man pages seem to > indicate that spamc is a drop-in replacement for the script if you're > running spamd. I just want to make sure before I

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

Theo Van Dinter said: > $ tr 'n-za-m' 'a-z' > zvxr^nfpraqrapl(arg > mike^ascendency(net > > It's probably used for spamcop reports and the like. Even if you clean > out your email address, you'll probably skip that header. > > Turns out a number of the unique ids in the message body do this ki

Re: [SAtalk] whitelist_from_recv??

At 11:00 AM 12/21/2002, you wrote: I Have a question!. what mean the last two columns in the sintaxis of whitelist_from_recv? I means, whitelist_from_recv *mymail.com mymail.com --- -- *mymail.com is the mail and the other?.. is the mail server?

[SAtalk] whitelist_from_recv??

I Have a question!. what mean the last two columns in the sintaxis of whitelist_from_recv? I means, whitelist_from_recv *mymail.com mymail.com --- -- *mymail.com is the mail and the other?.. is the mail server? Thanks. -- *.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin slow running from Procmail

On 19 Dec 2002, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > When downloading a lot of mail at once, it might make sense to use a > local instance of spamd/spamc instead of the spamassassin script. That > will probably get you a nice speed-up, even with the procmail problem. This brings me to a newbie question. If

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

Mark Martinec wrote: 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 o

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

Tom Allison wrote: 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 o

[SAtalk] Increase in low scoring spam?

I seem to be receiving a lot more low scoring spam in the last few days. I set my spam threshold at 7 and the auto-delete at 15. In the last few days, I've received a bunch of spam scoring just below 7. Anyone else seeing this? I'll probably lower my threshold to 6 because of this. Rossz