Hi Matt,
I am confused. Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf states the following:
This operates additively, so a trusted_networks line
after another one will result in all those networks
becoming trusted.
What does this really mean?
--Larry
-Original Message-
From: Matt
-Original Message-
From: McWhirter,Julia
This rule worked thanks, also upgraded to mimedefang 2.39 and
spamassassin 2.60 which help with some other spam that was slipping
through.
But I think you will get a lot of FPs with that one.
C.B.S., N.B.C., B.B.C.
--Larry
L.G.
-Original Message-
From: David B Funk
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:45 AM
To: Larry Gilson
Cc: 'Robban'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] SMTP gateway/filter
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
The preferred method is any way you prefer. ;) That is
Hi Chris,
I have been using the following uri test for about 3 weeks without issue:
describe MY_URI_TCP_PORTMY: Non-standard TCP port in URL
uri MY_URI_TCP_PORT/:\d{2,4}\D/
scoreMY_URI_TCP_PORT2.0
It will boost the score on top of what SA already chatches but will also
You have done this way more than I. I just feel cozy updating one RPM at a
time. I like increments. I almost feel like an old man writing like that!
--Larry
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:47 PM
To: Larry Gilson
Cc: Charles Gregory;
Yes, there is an option. You could have a custom script that would send the
message to smtpd on a different port. The master.cf would need a special
configuration for that port to prevent mail loops. Some people use it. I
think SecuritySage has an outline for such a configuration. The
Hi Jason,
My opinion only, but I would abandon this second method you are using and go
back to the original single script that reinjected the mail using Postfix's
sendmail binary (/usr/sbin/sendmail). It is better to use a simple method
than this alternate method. If you go back to this method,
Deersoft was bought by NAI. Deersoft made SpamAssassin Pro and SpamAssassin
Enterprise products. Justin should be able to tell you for sure but I
believe that Deersoft trade marked the specific products and not the
SpamAssassin name itself.
http://www.cio.com/archive/020103/et_company.html
Hi James,
-Original Message-
From: James Herschel
What I'm asking is:
1. Is the lack of a message-id header an accurate measure of spam?
2. Is this a rule in SpamAssassin? I haven't seen it in any reports
The Message-Id is an optional field. From what I have seen from posts over
Good numbers to see Martin. Thanks!
Regards,
Larry
-Original Message-
From: Martin Radford
From my own collections:
with FQDNwith hostname only
ham: 2331 (85.6%) 391 (14.4%)
spam: 1925 (76%) 608 (24%)
While I'm not
-Original Message-
From: mailinglists
This is maillog:
Aug 13 15:40:40 mailbox spamd[2469]: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 3182
Aug 13 15:40:40 mailbox spamd[2612]: processing message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
for filter:520.
Aug 13 15:40:41 mailbox spamd[2612]: clean message
-Original Message-
From: Angel Gabriel
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 18:03, Larry Gilson wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Angel Gabriel
I don't see anything from spamassassin in the mail headers.
I'm not even sure how to check that spamassassin is actually
Hey Matt,
Thanks for the lengthy reply. You gave me more than I was looking for and
it is very much appreciated!
Would anyone else like to comment on the effectiveness of each check and
where they think it they are weak and strong. Also, what scores you give
for each specific check?
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Covington, Chris
Hi all,
Has anyone thought of/found an automated solution to removing
messages from an Exchange system and cronning sa-learn on them?
Right now I have users move spam that makes it past SA/Postfix into
a Public Folder, and then I move
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler
At 05:37 PM 8/1/03 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
But there is no specific user associated with a mailing list.
1. Is this why mail is not going through SA if it's bound for a
list?
2. Is there a way to make all mail go through SA?
Hey Vicki,
Do I simply set auto_whitelist_factor 0? Does that turn off
AWL checking? Is there a better solution?
You might want to read the FAQ below. It does not specifically answer your
question but may help.
http://spamassassin.taint.org/faq/index.cgi?req=showfile=faq01.013.htp
If you
Great suggestions Raul, Thanks!
--Larry
-Original Message-
From: Raul Dias
Now that is an interesting dilema. Since I don't run Bayes
I don't run into that situation. Your situation is like asking
SA to score your experience and score someone else's experience.
If they do
-Original Message-
From: Shane Hickey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Howdy all,
Howdy Shane! A good procmail book is The Procmail Companion by Martin
McCarthy.
| spamassassin -e
I could be wrong but I don't think you are limited to this. I'll attempt
this but just looking at your
18 matches
Mail list logo
