Quoting Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:37:28AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Regardless, you mean to tell me that in order for an email to be
> autolearn'ed,
> > you have to have that appear in the headers? I find that silly. I thought
> it
> > had to be
Quoting Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:28:22AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > no, that shouldn't matter. There is nothing special with how it calls
> spamd.
> > Thats like saying all bets are off if you use maildrop or procmail to call
> spamd.
>
> except
Quoting Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:32:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by fbsd.cykotix.com by uid 82
> with
> > qmail-scanner-1.20rc3
> > (clamuko: 0.60. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:0:SA:1(12.7/8.0):.
> > Process
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:37:28AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Regardless, you mean to tell me that in order for an email to be autolearn'ed,
> you have to have that appear in the headers? I find that silly. I thought it
> had to be set in the local.cf and adding it in the headers was stric
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:28:22AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> no, that shouldn't matter. There is nothing special with how it calls spamd.
> Thats like saying all bets are off if you use maildrop or procmail to call spamd.
except that it's the program doing the rewriting. I don't know ab
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:32:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by fbsd.cykotix.com by uid 82 with
> qmail-scanner-1.20rc3
> (clamuko: 0.60. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:0:SA:1(12.7/8.0):.
> Processed in 4.526443 secs); 28 Sep 2003 23:43:37 -
> X-Spam-
Quoting Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 07:10:45PM -0700, Mohan Khurana wrote:
> > How do I tell if spamassassin is autolearning? I'm
>
> Look at the X-Spam-Status line, and see if "autolearn=" is ever spam
> or ham. Also, you can run spamassassin with -D and it'l
Quoting Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:27:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Spam Filtering performed by sourceforge.net.
>
> you're not scanning this message.
>
> --
> Randomly Generated Tagline:
> "Captain, we're sorry... We thought you were dead.
On 9/28/03 7:10 PM, "Mohan Khurana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> How do I tell if spamassassin is autolearning? I'm
> looking at the timestamps for the bayes_seen and
> bayes_tok files and they dont look to be updated in
> hours, although I'm getting a lot of mail. sa_learn
> --dump
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:27:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Spam Filtering performed by sourceforge.net.
you're not scanning this message.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Captain, we're sorry... We thought you were dead.
I was -- I'm better now." - Babylon 5
pgp0.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 03:21:32PM -0700, Mark Edwards wrote:
> Anyone else not able to SIGHUP to work with spamd?
Last time I tried it on Solaris 8 with perl 5.6.1 it just
killed SpamAssassin 2.60-rcSOMETHING.
--
(Mr.) Hannu Liljemark | Appelsiini Finland Oy | http://appelsiini.com
On 9/28/03 7:10 PM, "Mohan Khurana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also don't see the debug data
> in /var/log/maillog, although I did give spamd the -D
> option, anyone have any clues on that as well?
Did you kill and restart spamd?
---
Thi
Hi all,
How do I tell if spamassassin is autolearning? I'm
looking at the timestamps for the bayes_seen and
bayes_tok files and they dont look to be updated in
hours, although I'm getting a lot of mail. sa_learn
--dump all shows that the learner hasn't been through
anything. It should autolearn
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 07:10:45PM -0700, Mohan Khurana wrote:
> How do I tell if spamassassin is autolearning? I'm
Look at the X-Spam-Status line, and see if "autolearn=" is ever spam
or ham. Also, you can run spamassassin with -D and it'll tell you.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
If at 1st y
At 01:16 PM 9/28/03 -0700, Henry Kwan wrote:
I've noticed that after upgrading to 2.60, a few spams are slipping through
without being analyzed. Not a lot, probably only one in a few hundred, but
it's a bit of a head scratcher. Anyone have any ideas?
Do you use spamc/spamd? if so, is the message
>
> I've noticed that after upgrading to 2.60, a few spams are
> slipping through
> without being analyzed. Not a lot, probably only one in a
Message size exceeds Spamassassin max threshold?
> few hundred, but
> it's a bit of a head scratcher. Anyone have any ideas?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Here'
Hi,
I've noticed that after upgrading to 2.60, a few spams are slipping through
without being analyzed. Not a lot, probably only one in a few hundred, but
it's a bit of a head scratcher. Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks.
Here's the header of such a message:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rec
I just wanted to further clarify that the following error is upon "make
install" after a successful "make" and "make test". Also, I wanted to point
out that I have also previously installed the Digest::SHA1 in CPAN without
incident, in addition to installing the razor-sdk.
Can't locate loadable ob
On Sunday 28 September 2003 18:48 CET Matthias Fuhrmann wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I've got lotsa syslog entrys like the following ones:
>
> [...]
> spamd[23223]: Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at
> /opt/gnu/bin/spamd line 707, line 69 spamd[23223]: Use of
> uninitialized value in numeric
I tried to post this yesterday but it didn't make it. I apologize this is a
bit out of topic:
I am encountering an error trying to install razor-agents-2.36. I installed
the razor-agents-sdk-2.03 prior without incident. After a successful "perl
Makefile.pl", "make" and "make test" I get the follow
On Sunday 28 September 2003 05:46 CET Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Mark Edwards wrote:
> > Sep 27 15:15:50 lilbuddy spamd[47851]: server hit by SIGHUP, restarting
> >
> > spamd dies shortly thereafter.
>
> Happens to me, too, with perl 5.005. Works fine with 5.6.1 on another
> machi
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Mark Edwards wrote:
> Sep 27 15:15:50 lilbuddy spamd[47851]: server hit by SIGHUP, restarting
>
> spamd dies shortly thereafter.
Happens to me, too, with perl 5.005. Works fine with 5.6.1 on another
machine.
---
This sf
* Marcus Frings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ,
> | Sep 25 14:20:22 iridium spamd[2295]: razor2 check skipped: Bad file
> | descriptor Died at /usr/share/perl/5.6.1/Net/Ping.pm line 307,
> | line 1.
> `
Forget it. I found the solution.
Regards,
Marcus
--
"anger thought so no thought tou
Asif Iqbal wrote:
>:0:
> * ^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*
>|/usr/bin/mailx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I am seeing this error in the procmail log file
>
> --> procmail: Couldn't determine implicit lockfile from
> "/usr/bin/mailx"
A lock is not necessary for a filter, try
#v+
:0
* ^Subject:.*\*\*\*
Hallo,
I've got lotsa syslog entrys like the following ones:
[...]
spamd[23223]: Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at /opt/gnu/bin/spamd line
707, line 69
spamd[23223]: Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at /opt/gnu/bin/spamd line
707, line 70.
spamd[23223]: Use of un
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 16:51, Greg Ennis wrote:
> Help!
>
> Warning: I could not locate your pod2man program. Please make sure,
> your pod2man program is in your PATH before you execute 'make'
>
This is discussed extensively in the archives. Try:
unset LANG
and then start again.
Thom
I have stock spamassassin 2.6 RPM running on redhat 9 with DB_File RPM
installed as well. I dont think bayes is working however because I get this
error when running dump:
sa-learn --dump
Use of uninitialized value in numeric lt (<) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore
By adding a line like this in ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs :
Oops, reading
http://www.spamassassin.org/full/2.5x/dist/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
that may not work, depending on how your server is set
up. Need to put them in /etc/mail/spamassassin/mystuff.cf
---
I have read the docs but it is not clear to me how
to increase the spam score for spam emails that use
a number of obscene words. We're getting new text
spams advertising porn sites and length enhancing
products that are not getting scored as porn in
though they are using rather nasty words.
By a
So far 2.60 is working like a dream. It hasn't missed a single spam, and
the only false positive was an email from my insurance broker with new
rates. (Maybe spam is their native language or somehing.)
What has me a bit concerned is the Bayes scores. I have seen more BAYES_99
in the few days sinc
I have read the docs but it is not clear to me how to increase the spam
score for spam emails that use a number of obscene words. We're getting new
text spams advertising porn sites and length enhancing products that are
not getting scored as porn in though they are using rather nasty words.
I
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:59:12AM -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> What has me a bit concerned is the Bayes scores. I have seen more BAYES_99
> in the few days since I upgraded than I have seen in the entire time since
> I started using SpamAssassin.
2.60 updated the algorithm used to generate the pro
Put LANG="en_US" in /etc/sysconfig/i18n, log out and log back in and
start over. You should be ok then
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg
Ennis
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 04:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Installati
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 16:51, Greg Ennis wrote:
> Help!
>
> Warning: I could not locate your pod2man program. Please make sure,
> your pod2man program is in your PATH before you execute 'make'
>
This is discussed extensively in the archives. Try:
unset LANG
and then start again.
Thom
34 matches
Mail list logo
