Preliminary question: Is there a searchable archive of this list? I hate
jumping in without looking for past threads, but visually scanning the
geocrawler archive is just not cutting it.
Now for the real discussion:
I just tried installing SpamAssassin from the CPAN shell. The test phase
fai
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Greg Ward wrote:
> As for the *.doc.bat thing, SA is not a virus catcher, it's a spam
> detector. It can be manipulated into catching a few viruses, but the
> overall feeling on this list is that SA should do one thing and do it
> well.
The Sanitizer is a perl tool invokabl
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Landy Roman wrote:
> i added to user_pref blacklist_from someone@foo.
>
> looking at the headers it identified him as blacklist but still was not
> tag as spam with a score of -90
Run the message through "spamassassin -R" to take him off the automatic
whitelist?
_
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Landy Roman wrote:
> > > looking at the headers it identified him as blacklist but still was
> > > not tag as spam with a score of -90
> >
> > Run the message through "spamassassin -R" to take him off the automatic
> > whitelist?
>
> how did he get on that list?
It's an au
I've just run about 1900 recent (last 5 months) spam messages through SA
(the CPAN version, if that matters) and it got about an 88% success rate.
(I had an old unfiltered email account from which I grabbed the spool.)
A few of those it missed are extremely obvious spams, containing e.g.:
> Subj
I've been getting junk religious tracts with a return-path (and errors-to)
like
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'd like to "blacklist_from *MyInJesus.com" but the From: address is
@earthlink.net.
Obviously I can define a "header" test, but I'd like something that works
from user_prefs with s
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Greg Ward wrote:
> I find the best way to deal with spammers who persistently use the same
> envelope sender is to ban them at the MTA, so they get kicked out at
> SMTP time and never come close to SpamAssassin (or any of your other
> mail processing chain).
That would be id
diff -r1.32 -r1.33
47c47
< header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[A-Z0-9\W]{6,}[^a-z]+$/
---
> header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[^[:lower:]]{6,}$/
Shouldn't that be
header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[^[:lower:]]{6,}[^[:lower:]]+$/
??
___
Never mind, I misread the reul it was replacing and got confused.
Sorry.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
On 26 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Latest CVS (soon to be 2.1) catches the viagra, and also the unsubscribe
> details.
The other day I reported that I had about an 88% success rate on some
recent spam with SA 2.01. Actually it was a bit lower than that; it
missed 292 messages out of 1926.
On 26 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Yeah, increasing discrimination will end up causing the scores for some
> false-negatives to decrease. But hey, quit complaining!
I'm not complaining; I'm just offering examples in case somebody wants to
concoct new rules, which I don't have time for, just
I've diffed the r1.37 and r1.38 rules/50_scores.cf and some of the changes
are so unbelievable that I've decided not to install the new scores file.
Here's just a sampling:
r1.37 r1.38
----
score 25FREEMEGS_U
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> This isn't really a problem. It can actually be helpful too to allow
> the GA to do its own thing [...]
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tom Lipkis wrote:
> With large scores like this (positive or negative), very small
> perturbations in input can cause wildly
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Gunter Ohrner wrote:
> Am Thursday, 28. February 2002 00:39 schrieb Bart Schaefer:
> > SPAM: Hit! (6.5 points) BODY: Link to a URL containing "remove"
>
> Were did Bart's message hit the test? That's certainly a false positive. :-)
Th
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I don't understand the source of the problem. Is there a limit on the
> "pipe size" that I wasn't aware of?
Yes, there's a kernel buffer size limit, typically around 8k these days
but configurable.
> In that case, you could solve the problem by introdu
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> header X_AUTH_WARNING X-Authentication-Warning =~ /./
> describe X_AUTH_WARNING X-Authentication-Warning header exists
>
> score X_AUTH_WARNING3.0
X-Authentication-Warning shows up in an awful lot of perfectly ordinary
mai
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Casey Woods wrote:
>
> > Check out this one. A few well placed .'s and tt only scored a 2.6 on
> > my system:
>
> Yep, I'm seeing this stuff too (though not in huge numbers yet). I'm going
> to examine the body rules in a bit more
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> In this case, I wind up with message getting delivered to mailboxes with the
> 'F' in the 'From ' line missing, which results in the mailboxes becoming
> corrupted.
>
> I had a quick look at the spamc source, but no obvious reason for this jumps
> out a
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Greg Ward wrote:
> * procmail noticed that spamassassin crashed, and "recovered" all
> of my message save that first "F". The local MTA managed to
> salvage something from that mess and send me a message I could
> deal with.
What version of procmail?
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> > Are you invoking spamc from procmail? What version of procmail?
>
> Yes, procmail 3.21
3.21 is considered unstable; you should use either 3.15.2 or 3.22. I'm
checking on the procmail list whether one of those is known to fix this
particular bug.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Timothy Demarest wrote:
> Additionally, we have a goofy perl install with the prefix of [...] Is
> there a way that SpamAssassin could use the perl prefix when searching
> in addition to the hardcoded defaults?
lib/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm should start out as lib/Mail/SpamAssassi
t;
To: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Procmail Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More "missing first F" problems
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Philip, is there a specific version of procmail in which this is a known
>bug or is known
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Timothy Demarest wrote:
> >
> > > Additionally, we have a goofy perl install with the prefix of [...] Is
> > > there a way that SpamAssassin coul
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> And now a bunch of spam matching rules:
>
> body READ_TO_END/read this (?:e-?mail )?to the end/i
> describe READ_TO_ENDYou'd better read all of this spam!
I see a lot of slight variation on
It is important that you read t
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> Alright, here's a first pass at it:
>
> scoreDOT_HIDING 1.0
> scoreDOT_HIDING_3 2.0
> scoreDOT_HIDING_5 2.0
I think I'd score DOT_HIDING itself as 0.0. The chances you could conceal
a spam from all the other
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > the @site_rules_path et al. arrays. The other option is to "use Config"
> > in SpamAssassin.pm and do runtime replacement of $Config{prefix}, but that
> > seems more likely to break things.
>
> I fail to see how it would break things
OK, I won't obj
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> [...] I\'d be very happy to have SA Do The Right Thing as far as perl
> goes for its config files; but I think it should at least keep trying to
> read [from] /usr/share/spamassassin/, /usr/local/share/spamassassin/ and
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/ as it cur
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> + return !($subject cmp uc($subject));
Um, why not:
return ($subject eq uc($subject))
??
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson wrote:
> client does n ot have a bounce/redirect function they are unable to
> report SPAM back to the system. Does anyone know of an easy no brainer
> for the user to be able to do this.
This isn't exactly bouncing, but:
To send a message as an
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> 2. Single message from infrequent correspondant scores very high or very
> low. Let's say I send you a message which for some reason gets a -100
> bonus (badly constructed whitelist_from or something). Ok, now I'm in
> the AWL2 db as (-100,1).
Ooh,
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> This is the first, a bunch of rules to catch MLM and other "business
> opportunity" spams.
Almost anything that uses the word "downline", particularly in conjunction
with "grow", "increase", "improve", etc., is in my experience MLM spam.
___
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> Here's my file of rules for stock-market spam.
Almost all of my stock-market spam lately comes from (in order of
decreasing volume)
stockadvisor.ws
stockgroup.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
but SA is already catching all of it, so I haven't bothered creatin
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> My AWL database is rapidly getting big. It's up to 23MB and growing.
>
> Any suggestions for how to keep it from growing without bound?
Oh, dear. I can't check the size of my AWL DB at the moment -- server is
down -- but I never considered that SA wo
I sporadically get multipart/alternative email where the first (text)
part consists only of a one- or two-sentence warning that the content
"can only be viewed in HTML." I have never seen a non-spam message that
matches this description.
body VIEWED_ONLY_IN_HTML/This \w+ can only be \w+
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
> Here is what top shows once the email has been sent
> 1631 root 0 0 6424 6424 1196 T 0 0.0 5.0 0:01 spamd
^^^
spamd has received a SIGSTOP (or perhaps SIGTSTP) and the kernel is
waiting for a SIGC
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> The most recent example also included in the HTML part a "click here" link
> which for some reason did not trigger the CLICK_HERE_LINK rule. Could
> this be because the HTML part had "Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary"?
S
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> SA should apply body tests to any text parts within a multipart/related.
I just looked at the source of PerMsgStatus.pm for the first time ...
It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
Any nested multip
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
> > Any nested multipart containing a base64'd sub-part can totally defeat all
> >
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
> Why am I getting the errors;
> Still running as root: user not specified, not found, or set to root. Fall
> back to nobody.
>
> And why does the procmail log say
> procmail: Skipped "/home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules"
Both of these indicate that you hav
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime parts?
Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spama
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, AHA Lists wrote:
> Here is what I have in my procmailrc file, what is the syntax error?
>
> :0fw
> | spamc
> /home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules
What is "/home/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.11/rules" doing there on a line by
itself? That's the syntax error. What is it that you inten
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> The REMOVE_PAGE regexp was
>
> /^https?:\/\/[^\/]+\/remove/
>
> I changed it so that "remove" can be anywhere in the filename, and also
> added "removal", "delete" and "optout" to the words to search for.
I got a spam yesterday that used "no_emai
On 21 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Can anyone tell me how to get 2.11 onto CPAN while Justin's gone?
http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamass
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, David wrote:
> Spamd doesn't seem to care what i put in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> file
You have to restart spamd each time you change local.cf.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourcef
I get these failures:
t/spamd.NOK 2 Not found: noreal = From: does not include a real name
t/spamd.NOK 4 Not found: endsinnums = From: ends in numbers
t/spamd.NOK 6 Not found: apling = Subject has an exclamation mark
t/spamd.NOK
Never mind, it was a problem with my local.cf. (I thought "make test" was
not supposed to read local.cf?)
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> header X_X_PRESENT X-x =~ /./
> describe X_X_PRESENT Found an X-x header
Pine will generate an X-X-Sender header under perfectly innocent
circumstances.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing
I know this is from a few days ago ...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Ben Jackson wrote:
> # These are spamware as far as I can tell.
> header SPAMWARE_0 X-Mailer =~ /Delano e-Business Interaction Server|Accucast /
> describe SPAMWARE_0 Bulk email software fingerprints found in headers (0) (bjj)
> score S
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> I don't mind the user+developer mix, but I think spamassassin-bugzilla
> would be a better place to send Bugzilla comments.
I've been procmailing the bugzilla messages off into another folder.
> But heck - if it's going to split, why not make three? E
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Again, if this is really what's happening, I don't understand why a
> message is being penalized because it originated from a dialup modem. If
> it was properly relayed through the ISP's mail server, where's the
> problem?
>
On 27 Mar 2002, Nix wrote:
> | # Is this severe spam?
> | :0 H:
> | * ^X-Spam-Flag: YES$
> | * ? test `sed -n '/^X-Spam-Status: Yes, /{s/^.*hits=\([0-9]*\).*$/\1/;p;}'` -gt 15
> | spambox
Much more efficient:
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=(1[5-9]|[2-9][0-9])
spambox
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> Here's a revised version of the procmail stuff I use to add X-message-flag
> headers with spam reports so that Outlook can view them.
According to a discussion on the procmail list, using the X-message-flag
header in this way depends on something tha
Been away on vacation and just caught up with this ...
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Sundial Services International, Inc. wrote:
> In other words, this script is going to connect through POP3 to the other
> mail server, get the text of all the pending mail (up to 5MB of data),
> compare and run it through
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Sundial Services International, Inc. wrote:
> What I don't see anywhere, though, is the notion of the elimination of
> spam through comparison of messages in different mailboxes. Most of the
> algorithms I have found so-far analyze a _single message to determine if
> it "look
In 20_body_tests.cf in the latest CVS:
> describe NO_COSTNo suck thing as a free lunch (3)
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
I received a copy of the "Single European Girls" message at work, where
I'm using a different spam filter, which caught it giving this reasoning:
X-Reject: Forged From: header slandering juno.com
X-Warning: From:/Message-Id: is local, but message is external
The procmail recipe for "slandering j
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Kerry Nice wrote:
> What I'm saying is, shouldn't seeing an unsubscribe in an email count a
> whole lot less if the header isn't forged. I don't quite know how this
> could be done
The easiest way is to invent a rule for "this header is not forged" and
give it a negative sco
Is this perhaps waiting a run of the GA to finish before being committed,
or was it just overlooked?
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Definitions for A_HREF_TO_OPT_OUT, A_HREF_TO_REMOVE, and A_HREF_TO_UNSUB
have been dropped from the current CVS (when fixing bug #138) but are
still present in rules/30_text_fr.cf.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sour
Latest CVS has:
+body INCREASE_EJACULATION /increase ejaculation/i
+describe INCREASE_EJACULATION Offers increased ejaculation possibilities
And also:
+body EJACULATION/(?:increase|improve).{0,10}ejaculation/i
+describe EJACULATIONIncrease your ejaculation!
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> :0b
> * ^Subject: user_prefs update
> * !^X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * !^FROM_DAEMON
> | mv -f $USERPREFS $USERPREFS.old && cat - > $USERPREFS
That recipe should be using a local lock file, e.g.
:0b: $USERPREFS.$LOCKEXT
_
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Frank Kintrup wrote:
> Has anyone any idea how to complete the installation without fighting it out
> with the support of my ISP?
First I suggest getting the latest CVS version of spamassassin from
sourceforge, because it contains changes to the default rules search paths
to
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Frank Kintrup wrote:
> opendir(./../../..): Permission denied at /usr/lib/perl5/5.00503/FindBin.pm line
>143
>
> There is one variation when running "make test":
>
> opendir(./../../..): Permission denied at t/SATest.pm line 38
>
> Any ideas what goes on there?
This
I've been trying to think how to correctly relocate $(LOCAL_RULES_DIR)
relative to $(PREFIX) when building SA. The problem of course being that
in the "normal" case, /etc is not relative to $Config{prefix}, which is
the default value of $(PREFIX). This is particularly important when
a non-root u
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> I would say that it should be called ROOT rather than PREFIX, but yes,
PREFIX is the standard Makefile.PL name for this; SA can't change it
without breaking CPAN compatibility, etc. This is orthogonal to stuff
that would have to go in the .spec file
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> >No ... in fact, to build an RPM with the buildroot different from the
> >target install tree, you'd have more success as a non-root user. Right
> >now, installing NEVER puts local.cf anywhere but /etc/mail/spamassassin
> >
> That's not my experience --
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Configuration files should ALWAYS be under /etc/. Failure to do so is a
> violation of the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard).
I'd love to agree with you, but what's /usr/local/etc for, then? What
about e.g. Apache with /usr/local/conf/?
Configurat
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Richie Laager wrote:
> From: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.1.html
>
> The root filesystem contains many system-specific
> configuration files. ...
>
[...]
>
> So, /usr/local/etc doesn't exist after a default install.
> Okay, so let's create it. There's no restric
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > Configuration files for standard system software should always be under
> > /etc/. The question is whether it should be possible to install SA as
> > something other than "standard system software."
>
> Define 'standard system software.'
This is b
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
> $(PREFIX) should normally be '' (or '/' if paths are properly
> normalized after expansion).
You're thinking of GNU autoconf. SA uses Perl's ExtUtils::MakeMaker.
MakeMaker does not define $(PREFIX) that way. MakeMaker defines $(PREFIX)
as (by default) $Conf
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
> | MakeMaker does not define $(PREFIX) that way. MakeMaker defines
> | $(PREFIX) as (by default) $Config{prefix} from Perl's Config module.
> | That is normally /usr or /usr/local, not /, and Makefiles generated
> | with MakeMaker install into $(PREFIX)/bin $(
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Barry L. Kline wrote:
> I really appreciate all the time that everyone has spent offering me
> suggestions. At this point, I'm at a loss...
Time to ask on the procmail list, then: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
However, if mutt is able to read the mailbox, the problem may be somethi
[By the way, I accidentally sent that to -talk, it was supposed to go to
-sightings, to which I subsequently sent a copy.]
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 April 2002 08:17 am, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > Seems like "absolutely free webcam" sh
L PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],=
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karrie Ryan),[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=
Maija & =
>>Bart Schaefer), [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Siew =
>>Keng & Tom Tomczak),[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stacy Wheeler), [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
>>(Chr
On 19 Apr 2002, Ken Causey wrote:
> Is there any case in which a "valid" email has forged recieved headers?
Rarely; but I'm sure there are cases in which SpamAssassin may mistakenly
identify a received header as forged when it really is not.
You can think of it as lowering the score to account
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> What I still can't figure out is why this matched ASCII_FORM_ENTRY.
I just did a cvs update and noticed that the GA has now reduced the score
on ASCII_FORM_ENTRY 3.135 -> 0.036.
___
Spamas
I have a perl script that diffs scores files and reports large changes.
Glancing through its output:
score: BUGZILLA_BUG -2.000 -> 1.123
(I thought BUGZILLA_BUG wasn't supposed to be passed through the GA?)
score: CHARSET_FARAWAY 0.8 -> 2.070
The Debian people will just love that one.
score:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> It's hard, since the GPL is incompatible with the Artistic license, and
> I think there are a lot of people who use SA who are presently extending
> it in ways which are compatible with the SA license, but not with the
> GPL (they don't want to release
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> BS> Right; the GPL doesn't require you to expose to any third party any
> BS> changes that you make; it just requires you to provide the source code if
> BS> and when you do expose changes to a t
I notice someone just committed a change to the GAPPY_SUBJECT regex.
However, as the subject is now always included in body tests, any message
that matches GAPPY_SUBJECT will also match GAPPY_TEXT.
This might in part account for the negative score that GAPPY_TEXT got in
the latest GA run.
Shou
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Shouldn't all subject-specific tests be removed?
Of course I meant "all subject-specific tests that overlap with body
tests." But on closer inspection, I think GAPPY_SUBJECT may be
I moved my local configuration out of the way, so I know it's not that.
t/spamd_stopok 1/2 Not found: status = X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5
t/spamd_stopFAILED test 2
Failed 1/2 tests, 50.00% okay
___
(I've already sent this to sa-sightings, back when it first arrived. I
was running some old false negatives through the released 2.20 to see if
it treated them differently.)
--- Begin Message ---
Title: newsletter.mockup
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> But some config files are more programmatic than others. Is
> EvalTests.pm code, or config file?
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether it's code or config
file unless you're co
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> BS> The GPL cuts both ways: If I take my local.cf file and declare it to
> BS> be GPL'd, then I'm not allowed to add it to SA and distribute the
> BS> whole thing as a new "work"
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Bart Schaefer writes:
>
> > That doesn't matter. The *GPL* says that I can't include my GPL'd
> > code in any other work that is not GPL'd. Even if SA's license says
> > it's OK, I'm c
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> SA *is* distributed under both licenses.
It's moot now, of course, but the point was that different parts of SA
could be distributed under different and non-overlapping licenses if the
install procedure was sufficiently clever.
_
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, joost witteveen wrote:
> I wanted something free (GPL or similar), and preferably not written
> in Java (as is OpenAntiVirus, the only package mentioned on freshmeat
> that does have its on ruleset).
I've you're using procmail, there are several antivirus filters floating
ar
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Doug Crompton wrote:
> The following message (headers below) was tagged as spam. It is not. What
> I don't understand is why does it say yahoo.com is a forged address and
> via a tagged relay?
As for the tagged relay, nslookup says:
Name:44.114.135.172.relays.osirusoft.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Doug Crompton wrote:
> What can I tell this person to do differently to avoid this?
When using an AOL dialup to connect, reconfigure the user agent to use an
AOL address as the sender. (AOL doesn't sell dialups without assigning a
"screen name" that can receive email, do th
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> At 08:51 AM 4/22/2002 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> >
> >The trouble is that any solution that places a burden on the sender is
> >lousy social engineering.
>
> unfortunately, you just defined life. Everything we do t
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Vivek Khera wrote:
> If there is such an RFC, how would I then use my personal email address,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], if there is no machine with that domain name assigned
> to its IP address (it is a virtual address)?
Even if there isn't a machine with an "A" record for khera.
OK, last message from em on this subject as well.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> > > You've just accumulated enough scar tissue from using bad UI
> > > software so that you cannot recognize the pain anymore.
> >
> >That's non sequitur.
>
> and that's a classic debating techniqu
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>
> > :0 fw
> > |spamassassin -d
> >
> > :0:
> > $MAIL
>
> how are you suggesting that I actually use these?
How do you want to use them? You've never explained -when- you want to
remove the
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Thurn, Martin (Intranet) wrote:
> t/spamd.ld.so.1: ../spamd/spamc: fatal: relocation
> error: file ../spamd/spamc: symbol __register_frame_info: referenced
> symbol not found
Your $PATH is messed up -- you're mixing native linker with GNU compiler
or vice-ver
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> # First stop loops
> :0
> * ^[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> {
>:0:
>/var/spool/mail/auto
>
>:0
>{
> EXITCODE=0
> HOST=
>}
> }
>
> That will match [EMAIL PROTECTED] on any of the various To,Cc,etc lines,
> then store those message
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> ...or you can just use the tool that comes with the SA distribution
> that's in tools/check_whitelist which will dump the list out all nicely
> formatted for you.
I just tried this, and (a) it croaks if invoked with perl 5.005 on the
"use warnings;" l
This would be more appropriate on the procmail list, but:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Jeff Shepherd wrote:
> I'm setting up an account on my mail server that will unassassinate
> false-positive spam. I plan to have users that received mail tagged
> as spam send the message to this account
The first
I've been running the CVS version with DCC included since yesterday and
have yet to see a single DCC hit. (Perhaps there's something else I don't
have set up, that I need?)
Since we're comparing rule effectiveness, I scanned my archive of spams
(which I keep on a 14 day rotation) and counted the
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I find this quite interesting, beucase it gives and example of how
> ineffective some of the rules have become. (NIGERIAN_SCAM, for example)
There are a couple of things to note about this analysis:
(1) It doesn't account for duplication. If you got
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
