Somebody please explain how to get spamd (v 2.61, suse9)
to use user_prefs. The documented way does not work!.
--
|\ /---\|
| -/ o \ \\/ __/
| -\ \__-/__|__/
|/ \---/ _/_\__/
On Dec 30, 2003, at 5:45 PM, Hans Gerber wrote:
We only want spamd to listen on '--socketpath=path'. Spamc should be
invoked from within .procmailrc.
I could not get this method to work.
It does work, afaik unix-socket should be cheaper with Resources than
TCP_Socket.
The socket implementation app
Hello Gordon,
Tuesday, December 30, 2003, 1:20:30 AM, you wrote:
GR> (1) If I want to add new rules, such as Jennifer's "Popcorn" etc rules that
GR> someone kindly pointed me to, should I put them into my
GR> .spamassassin/user_prefs file? (I am not root). Is there an "include"
GR> mechanism for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 15:45, Hans Gerber wrote:
> Hi Douglas,
>
> Douglas Kirkland schrieb :
>
> > Why does it matter if one of your users uses some other user's
> > user_prefs file. As far as I am concerned I do not care if one of my
> > user
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/technology/30spam.html
> Not long ago, Mr. Ralsky, like many other bulk e-mailers, had high
> hopes that the new federal law would help legitimize his operation.
> ... He said that he was counting on Internet providers, in return,
> to stop trying to block his mes
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:31:29 -0800 Greg Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Not 100% a spamassassin issue, but I've got a ton of spammers trying any
> address they possibly can on my domain. Postfix responds to each one
> with a 'reject: unknown user', but of course spammers don't
At Tue Dec 30 23:24:01 2003, pjh wrote:
>
> Is it true then, that if I do not use sa-learn, that
> no Bayesian filtering occurs?
You won't get bayesian filtering until the bayes database has learned
200 spam and 200 ham messages. Ideally, the user teaches bayes ham
and spam using sa-learn to fee
Hi Douglas,
Douglas Kirkland schrieb :
> Why does it matter if one of your users uses some other user's
> user_prefs file. As far as I am concerned I do not care if one of my
> users uses another user's user_prefs file. They would only hurt
> themselves by using some other user_prefs file. You
Chris Santerre wrote:
> WOW!!! Nice work!!
>
> Thanks for sharing the results!! We can put that whole spellcheck
> thing to rest now ;)
>
> --Chris
I won't let this die yet, I have a few ideas to play with, and more when I
get more time to look at some ham subjects which could cause these
results
I have ideas on this one, how about ignoring any words between []'s this
would prevent false positives for many group discussions, as for example
this group uses SAtalk and I'm sure this word isn't in your dict. Also
ignore numbers or numbes with chr's between them? I've seen lots of dates
and ot
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: Dallas L. Engelken; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Spell Checking the Subject Header (RESULTS)
>
>
> WOW!!! Nice work!!
>
thank you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 29 December 2003 23:49, Hans Gerber wrote:
> Hello to everyone,
>
> We are running a server with some dozens of users with shell
> access. Up to now everyone has the ability to call spamassassin from
> within .procamilrc. This gives us quite
I know I said I wouldn't get to it, but the Vdrug guy bothered me :)Updated
and tested to 2.50r
I got a report on one domain, iqmailer.net. So far the research I've done
does NOT justify it for removal. However I'm not a harda$$, so if someone
can prove to me it should be removed, well it will be
Not 100% a spamassassin issue, but I've got a ton of spammers trying
any
address they possibly can on my domain. Postfix responds to each one
with a 'reject: unknown user', but of course spammers don't use their
own address and my mail queue gets insanely full (not quite to the
point
of a denial-
Someone recently posted a spamd modification that allows it to access
courier mta's authdaemon to properly find home directories, etc for
virtual users. It was requested that he send it over to you guys, but I
didn't see anything float through this list about it. Has it been
received? It would b
You'll find it more silly than that: I'm rejecting high-scoring spam (15+ is
what I call "high") through simple postfix header checks. Since my average
score for spam is about 13, the default 3 points added by the bigevil rules
resulted in about 200 spams being rejected since yesterday...
Sorry
WOW!!! Nice work!!
Despite the results I wouldn't call it a failure at all. Just another thing
learned. Very nice!
How did it handle things not found in the dictionary? Like LFHDJFHFJ$*? I
didn't look at the code close enough :)
Thanks for sharing the results!! We can put that whole spellcheck t
Adam Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That seemed to do the trick, but it does beg the question: if you can
> set the format of the spam report in the "add_header_ directive, what
> are "clear_report_template" and "report" for, especially if they don't
> seem to work?
If you switch report_
On 12/30/03, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
>
>After fiddling a bit, I found that the following incantations would
>allow me to set the format of that header:
>
>report_safe 0
>remove_header all Report
>add_header spam Report _HITS_ points; _REPORT_
>
>The add_header spec must apparently co
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:02:35PM +0100, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Or has this already been taken into account when doing the GA
> process?
There's lots of issues with RBLs in the GA, but we're working on
addressing them. For instance, we're looking to get rid of the GA for a
better/fast
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Everything, including the Bayes scores, are GA derived.
Right. Then the comment saying "End of GA-evolved scores" in
50_scores.cf (before the network tests) is probably somewhat
misleading.
Anyway, I understand that the GA process entails swee
On Tuesday, December 30, 2003 @ 8:01:31 AM [-0700], Mathieu Nantel wrote:
> Is there something I'm missing here? I was under the impression that SA parses
> all .cf files from the share/spamassassin folder.
That should be working. Are you using spamd? If so, did you restart
the daemon?
--
Matt
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:10:00PM +0100, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> (The RBLs aren't included in the GA process, are they?)
Yes. Everything, including the Bayes scores, are GA derived.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"I don't get the army: they kick you out for being gay, but their big pl
This was sent to me, and NEEDS to be adjusted to taste:
#!/bin/sh
DEFFILES="/etc/mail/spamassassin/*cf"
GREPSTR="describe"
cat $DEFFILES | egrep ^$GREPSTR \
| awk '{ print "echo `fgrep " $2 " /oldtraps/spamtrap* | wc -l` " $2 } '
\
| sort | uniq | tail +2 | sh | sort -rn
#EOF
/oldtraps/
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Mike Kuentz (2)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: [SAtalk] RE: Big Evil FP?
> I'd like to know off hand what kind of hit rates people are getting.
Roughly
> 90%
After enabling SA to use the RBL rules, SA was able to identify a lot
more spam than it used to. However, it was still letting through
quite a lot, so I just bumped the scores for the Spamcop and DSBL
checks, which helped even more. (I also tried bumping SORBS and a
couple of the others, but that
Good day,
I dropped in the bigevil.cf rules from Chris Santerre (in the rules folder). I
sent myself a test email and I cannot get any rules to be triggered from that
file. Among the 30+ spams I got this morning, none triggered the rules
either.
Is there something I'm missing here? I was under
Hello,
Hans Gerber schrieb :
> Now there is also the 'spamd --auth-ident' option available. Now my
> question: Is anyone using this option and can it assure that spamd
> wont use any but the user_prefs of the user that is calling spamc?
So far I am not able to get --auth-ident to work. :-<
texa
Adam Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...but it has no effect. In fact, the report is coming through in its
> default form (simply a bulleted list of rules that were tripped), and
> nothing I do seems to have any effect on it whatsoever.
If you're talking about the X-Spam-Report header, I
At Tue Dec 30 19:25:57 2003, pjh wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Is there any way I can differentiate between spam being detected using the
> local.cf file and that from the user_prefs file?
>
> The reason I ask is that I would like to know if the sa-learn application
> I am running is having an effect.
i've seen alot of junk lately that is severly mis-spelled in the
subject...
Subject: cheeap sooftware avaailable ! lpvapvcijv
Subject: Dallase would you pllease just listten to me
So... i hacked up an eval test to call pspell on the subject line of
each message here are the results running
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Sickles wrote:
Another thing that I noticed about the headers is that the "Received"
headers are missing "for username" entries and have "id XX" instead. I
have edited these headers to show what I mean. I am wondering how is this mail
being sent that these are
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:54:30PM -0500, Joey Netterville wrote:
> okay, that was a little unclear... :)
>
> i have run spamassassin on existing mail spools, but when i run
> spamassassin on a mail spool it marks the spool as if the entire spool was
> one large email message. i'm looking for a wa
Create a user called "blackhole" and then add the entry into the postfix configuration
(/etc/postfix/virtual) that says (usually the last line)
@yourdomain.com[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This basically says any lost mail goes to the blackhole user. Then create a cron job
similar to this:
:>/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joey
> Netterville
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 1:55 PM
> To: Dave Kliczbor
> Cc: Joey Netterville; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] running SA on existing mail spools
>
>
> okay, that was a
Hi Brian,
On the SpamAssassin.org site in the Documentation section is a HOWTO I
wrote to do this a couple different ways.
Greg
Good Morning, All,
I'm just getting my feet wet (still wet behind the ears, though) with
SpamAssassin and I am looking for specific info for setting it up to run
with
Hi All,
Is there any way I can differentiate between spam being detected using the
local.cf file and that from the user_prefs file?
The reason I ask is that I would like to know if the sa-learn application
I am running is having an effect.
I know the user_prefs files is being used because I can
Hey folks,
Not 100% a spamassassin issue, but I've got a ton of spammers trying any
address they possibly can on my domain. Postfix responds to each one
with a 'reject: unknown user', but of course spammers don't use their
own address and my mail queue gets insanely full (not quite to the point
of
Are suggestions and discussion regarding spamassassin rules discussed here?
The GUARANTEED_100_PERCENT tested should be expanded to phrases like
"100% safe" "100% satisfaction", etc.
Some spam about HGH are getting through, because the HGH are being
spaced out with several non-ascii characters.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 01:14:07PM -0500, John Sickles wrote:
> > test USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO is triggered. But he is not listed in local.cf
> > (or any files in /usr/share/spamassassin) in a "all_spam_to" entry. When I
> > run this mail by hand with "s
At Tue Dec 30 16:18:49 2003, S.Neukirchner wrote:
> > > So I looked at the mail in my box market as spam and found out
> > > that the points in the header are different from the points in the =
> > > report:
> >
> > For some reason your messages are being run through spamassassin
> > twice. Afte
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 01:14:07PM -0500, John Sickles wrote:
> test USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO is triggered. But he is not listed in local.cf
> (or any files in /usr/share/spamassassin) in a "all_spam_to" entry. When I
> run this mail by hand with "spamassassin -D < mail" there is no hit for
> USER_IN_AL
Hi,
This user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" keeps getting spam because the
test USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO is triggered. But he is not listed in local.cf
(or any files in /usr/share/spamassassin) in a "all_spam_to" entry. When I
run this mail by hand with "spamassassin -D < mail" there is no hit for
USER_IN_ALL_SPA
I've also found the following reference to be quite helpful. I didn't want to
parse outgoing mail, and this one is explicitely telling you how:
http://jessen.ch/articles/spamassassin-and-postfix/
On Tuesday December 30 2003 10:08, Atkins, Brian wrote:
> Good Morning, All,
>
> I'm just getting my
Hello all,
I am new to the forum so forgive me if I ask a question that has been
answered before.
I am currently using the sa-learn system by forwarding a spam message that
makes it through spamassassin to a spam only mailbox. I do the same with
ham as well. My question is the any problem with
If you want to use postfix/amavisd-new/SA, I can recommend these docs:
http://www.geocities.com/scottlhenderson/spamfilter.html
and
http://lawmonkey.org/anti-spam.html
Casper.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Yup, I just pulled it up from the Nov spam corpus. FP from a WebTV user that
CONSTANTLY sends worthless "funny" emails to a user here.
It is removed. 2.05q posted.
I'd like to know off hand what kind of hit rates people are getting. Roughly
90% of the spam I get hits BigEvil.
Many thanks as a
I sent this message last week, but I think it got lost in the shuffle of the holidays,
so I'll try again...
Since our server's copy of SA was upgraded to v2.6.1, the X-Spam-Report header no
longer contains a content preview. I tried adding this to my user_prefs file:
clear_report_template
repo
It took me awhile to get it right, but I finally did yesterday;^)
I'm running FreeBSD 4.7, Postfix, Procmail, SA2.61, on Perl 5.8 and had a bear
of a time getting the processes on my 1.8Ghz 1GB ram, IBM SCSI drives with
each partition required by an email server;^) At times my process would go
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 01:40 PM, Simon Byrnand wrote:
I upgraded from 2.60 to 2.61 and I am getting many false positives. It
seems that Bayes is pushing it with a score of 5.4. What are people to
do to get around this? Do you set Bayes for a lower score? Do you
disable? Thanks!
5.4 BAYE
One problem I found with with pre-2.61 versions is if the users
caughtmail or .procmail/log file gets too big (somewhere around 26MB)
it will lock up spamd and bring the server to a rather quick death.
I'm not sure if it still does it in 2.61. My non-fix was to run a
cron to find the big files an
okay, that was a little unclear... :)
i have run spamassassin on existing mail spools, but when i run
spamassassin on a mail spool it marks the spool as if the entire spool was
one large email message. i'm looking for a way to check the individual
messages.
my overall goal is to be able to check
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:29:49AM -0800, Gary Funck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In ferreting out spam phrases, bad URL's, and in scanning e-mail in
> general, I think it'd be convenient if there were a grep-like
> utility that understood e-mail. Let's call it mail_grep.
If you call it grepmail
http://grepmail.sourceforge.net/
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gary Funck
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 12:30 PM
> To: Spamassassin List
> Subject: [SAtalk] suggestion: mail_grep - a tool for scanning e-mail
>
>
>
In ferreting out spam phrases, bad URL's, and in scanning e-mail in
general, I think it'd be convenient if there were a grep-like
utility that understood e-mail. Let's call it mail_grep. Mail_grep
would be able to scan e-mail (in mbox format at a minium) for occurrences
of a given string. To do thi
One of my users got a link to this:
http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/bob/On-A-Rock/On-A-Rock.htm
Looks ticz.com is an ISP, but probably had some one set up shop to host
images off of their site.
Mike
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM L
Looks like the site's down right now but if you want to do it for all email
this is about as easy as it gets -
http://postfix.cnc.bc.ca/twiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome
I use a combination of that, and the stuff at
http://www.advosys.ca/papers/printable/postfix-filtering.html on a box in my
DMZ to ha
sorry, forgot the url
http://advosys.ca/papers/postfix-filtering.html
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkins, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 10:08 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [SAtalk] Postfix and Spamassasin
>
>
> Good Morning, All,
>
> I'm j
Brian,
I used this site for about 95% of my setup. I used postfix in front of an
Exchange server.
HTH
Mike Schrauder
www.specialtyblades.com
www.olfablades.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkins, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 10:08 AM
> To:
Good Morning, All,
I'm just getting my feet wet (still wet behind the ears, though) with
SpamAssassin and I am looking for specific info for setting it up to run
with Postfix. I have looked at
http://wiki.spamassassin.org/w/IntegratedInMta but I can't seem to locate
the amavisd.conf that it refer
I added several filename extensions and fixed oversights in 3 rules.
Thanks Scott for the input!
http://www.emtinc.net/includes/chickenpox.cf
Jennifer
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or ju
Ok, this didn't work overnight. However I did receive spam with the exact
first base64 pattern in it. So I think it is just a problem with rawbody
So what rule type do we use to catch this raw pattern??
rawbody hilton_b64 raw:/base64code/
would that work?
--Chris
> -Original Me
> > Start SpamAssassin results
> > 7.10 points, 5.5 required;
>
> > * 3.0 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 99 to 100%
> > [score: 0.9988]
Also -- isn't a 3.0 for 99-100% indicative of an OLD version of
SpamAssassin ?
===
Gary Funck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This simple grep won't find variously encoded forms for "young adult", but
> I did try the base64 forms of "young adult" and "Young adult" and saw zero
> hits.
>
> I'm sure who ever came up with that pattern in the first place had a good
> reason
> at the t
At Tue Dec 30 11:13:46 2003, S.Neukirchner wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I am using SpamAssassin 2.55 with procmail, my MTA is sendmail.
>
> Sometimes I get mails who are marked as spam but they are not going
> to the spam mailbox as I told in procmailcr:
>
> So I looked at the mail in my box market as sp
--On Monday, December 29, 2003 3:12 PM -0500 Chris Santerre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings I hope everyone had a great holiday. I've updated Bigevil to
version 2.05m. I've been tweaking the rules as I add more. So this update
is actually smaller in size with more evil domains! Yeah!
BigEvil
I'm trying to devise a rule to catch a foreign character set like this one.
Can anyone offer some help with this?
tia
---Michael--- Begin Message ---
软件名称：易新代理网关[yxwingate]
软件版本：V 1.0
软件大小：396KB
OICQ咨询：114075303
电话咨询：0519-8670323
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
应用平台：Win9x/Me/NT/2000/XP
Hello,
I am using SpamAssassin 2.55 with procmail, my MTA
is sendmail.
Sometimes I get mails who are marked as spam but
they are not going
to the spam mailbox as I told in
procmailcr:
_
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.logSPAMASSASSIN=/usr/bin/sp
Firstly thanks for the helpful replies to my previous questions...
I am now working on refining the scores for my own personal situation, and
have run into another couple of issues that I could not quite figure out
from the documentation...
(1) If I want to add new rules, such as Jennifer's "Popc
Hello to everyone,
We are running a server with some dozens of users with shell
access. Up to now everyone has the ability to call spamassassin from
within .procamilrc. This gives us quite some load for multiple
spamassassin processes.
Now we are evaluating the possible use of spamd. Our users ho
> I do find it amusing that they've harvested email address to spam from an
> anti-spam community.
Yup :) I find it amusing that I get web hosting and domain registration
spams when that is what I do if they even bothered to check my web page
before spamming hehehee
--
Regards,
+---
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Peter
Kiem
>Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11:20 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [SAtalk] First spam directed to me at my SA email alias
>> track where the spam originates. Disappointing too b
> track where the spam originates. Disappointing too because now it will
> get
> sold and soon the flood will begin.
So turn it into an advantage. Unsubscribe it from the list and set it up
as a spam trap address :)
--
Regards,
+-+-+
Though off topic it indeed is funny.
The irony is that I receive variants of this all of the time. I simply wouldn't buy a
physical product from a physical company that I don't deem trustworthy yet these
people think that someone will buy a product from a site that says "[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c11c
Title: First spam directed to me at my SA email alias
Oh well, I guess it was bound to happen. Got my first email addressed to the alias I use to post here. That is why I do it I guess, so that I can track where the spam originates. Disappointing too because now it will get sold and soon t
75 matches
Mail list logo
