Mike Schrauder
Specialty Blades, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ross Tsolakidis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] general question about usage of SA
Hi all,
Can I only filter selected domains even individual mailboxes
I am about ready to just open the message body with MIMEDefang and whack
anything that mentions "InterScan" with extreme prejudice (like, forward it
to InterScan's Postmaster, until they forcibly distribute a patch to all
their customers that disables this stupid, stupid mis-feature).
But befor
On 24 January 2004 14:29 +0100 Arpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
After upgrading chichekpox to Version 1.11, spamassassin --lint fails
on every server i tried (spamassassin 2.62, perl 5.8.2).
Fixed in version 1.14 (which RulesduJour downloaded yesterday).
--
Mike Zanker
Northampton,
I found the following on Dwight Halstead:
http://www.autosndeals.com/ur/ur,,_t,,itemview,,itemid,,1310.ne.aspx
http://www.thewellcommunity.org/Forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=173
http://www.nexx.iact1.com/88191/index.cfm
Some even have phone numbers :)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL P
In your message regarding SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox and UUencoded
pdf file dated Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:07:17 +, Mike Bostock said
that ...
>MB- Received false negative due to its attachment.
I meant false positive - sorry
>MB-
>MB- Header of attachment was
>MB-
>MB- &qu
In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox
and UUencoded .pdf file dated Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:25 +, Mike
Bostock said that ...
>MB- In your message regarding [SAtalk] SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox and
>MB- UUencoded .pdf file dated Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:07:17
In your message regarding [SAtalk] SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox and
UUencoded .pdf file dated Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:07:17 +, Mike
Bostock said that ...
>MB- Received false negative due to its attachment.
I posted a correction to this from home but it doesn't seem to have
appeared on
OP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see
<http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?193.252.22.130>]
0.0 CASHCASHCASH Contains at least 3 dollar signs in a row
0.0 UPPERCASE_50_75message body is 50-75% uppe
--On Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:17 PM -0800 Ian White
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Try the following bit of code in your filter_end before you write the
headers.
if (!defined($SASpamTester->{auto_learn_status})) {
$learn = "no";
} elsif ($SA
hat this is and hopefully find a way to kill
it?
- --
Mike Loiterman
grantADLER
Tel: 630-302-4944
Fax: 773-442-0992
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key 0xD1B9D18E
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0.3
Comment: Digitally signed by Mike Loiter
Any thoughts on the simplest way of installing spamassassin _and_ keeping it
current? On Redhat I used CPAN, no problems with it, guess I'm not 100%
sure on the benefits of doing it using CPAN vs RPM.
Any other "gotchas" with Suse and Spamassassin that I should know of? Quick
search of the archi
--On Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:06 PM -0700 Nels Lindquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Maybe there's another
way.
I want to generate some kind of record in the logs, or record in the mail
headers, indicating what the autolearn disposition of the mess
SA 2.6x run by itself out of .procmailrc or spamc/spamd seems to add an
autolearn=X flag to tell you what happened to the message as it interacted
with the autolearn system. But I run SA+MD on a relay, and I don't get
these flags when calling spam_assassin_check() from mimedefang-filter's
filt
I agree...certainly use MailScanner. Ultimately, this is a job for the MTA
though. I can give you exact details on how to do it with sendmail. If you
use Postfix, someone else will have to help you.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
should pick up the new rules.
Any info would be great...I've been following all the BIGEVIL and
TRIPWIRE threads lately...Great work!
- Mike
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:10:12PM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote:
>> Hrmm...I guess I would just build SA with that perl? Like perl5.6
>> Makefile.PL? I might mess with that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:16:26PM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote:
>> Anyone else seeing problems like this when they start 2.62
>>
>> [12:39:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /home/mi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anyone else seeing this in 2.62 when the start up:
[12:39:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /home/mike]# /usr/local/etc/rc.d/spamass.sh
start Can't use subscript on split at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 100,
ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anyone else seeing problems like this when they start 2.62
[12:39:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /home/mike]# /usr/local/etc/rc.d/spamass.sh
start Can't use subscript on split at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 100,
do this
because the SQL-based Bayesian filtering doesn't quite look ready for prime
time.
Mike Jackson
Technical Manager, efn.org
www.efn.org
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Developmen
--On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:37 PM -0500 Ben Hanson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It always stamps a header that reads: X-Mailer:
Chilkat ActiveX Mail Control (www.chilkatsoft.com). It's all legitimate
internal business traffic. Ben Hanson
I.S. MGR
Transprint USA Inc.
"X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1
Good one! I noticed this, too, but I call SA from MIMEDefang, so my MTA
hasn't yet added a Received: header when MIMEDefang calls
filter_recipient(). But it was easier for me to reject these without even
bothering to run it through SpamAssassin (which I call later from
filter_end()).
sub filt
--On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:28 AM -0600 Bob Apthorpe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IDP broadband
providers that give their customers direct access to port 25 on remote
systems by default. Spam from AOL dropped to almost nothing once they
did that.
Oh, one other thing - when did they do that?
--On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:48 PM -0500 John Ruttenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Batchelor:
And as soon as SA is upgraded to recognize when a lawsuit is pending, I
might turn the HABEAS_SWE rule back on. Until then, a forged Habeas
header is a free pass for spam to get throu
--On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:28 AM -0600 Bob Apthorpe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IDP broadband
providers that give their customers direct access to port 25 on remote
systems by default.
Why should I have to pay extra for a business-class DSL line just so I can
avoid using the ISP's heavily
--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:07 PM -0600 Rich Puhek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Be patient. Use additional rules/tools to catch the latest spammers
(clue: most come from spam zombie processes). Report the Habeas violators
(more $$$ out of the spammers pockets!). Let's keep the Habeas marks as
--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:39 AM -0800 Brian May
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IF spammers use the
Habeas headers, and the message is in fact spam, they will be sued.
And as soon as SA is upgraded to recognize when a lawsuit is pending, I
might turn the HABEAS_SWE rule back on. Until then, a
--On Monday, January 12, 2004 10:07 PM -0500 Matt Kettler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] NTDOMAIN.private.dns
Should that work?
No, not unless your MTA can resolve an IP to NTDOMAIN.private.dns and put
it into a Received: header.
NTDOMAIN.private.dns
--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:26 PM -0700 Nels Lindquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you encounter one shady business with a forged BBB certificate on
the wall, does that mean you'll never trust the BBB again?
The BBB-seal-forger doesn't lie and cheat his way onto my premises in order
to ma
Rich Puhek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 15:45:
>
> I put together a little script to generate a summary. An example recent
> spam gives the following output:
Looks nice. However, the mail has already been forwarded to my Exchange
server, so it's not on my mail gateway any
Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 15:21:
> At 02:47 PM 1/13/2004, Mike Leone wrote:
> >Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 14:22:
> >> At 02:12 PM 1/13/2004, Mike Leone wrote:
> >> >I have a spam that scored
Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/13/04 at 14:22:
> At 02:12 PM 1/13/2004, Mike Leone wrote:
> >I have a spam that scored like this:
> >
> >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0
> >tests=BAYES_56,
> >
I have a spam that scored like this:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_56,
FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, HTML_60_70, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02, HTML_MESSAGE
In my local.cf, I made the test HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02 score 3 points. That
would mean that the other tes
in and always get through no matter the score and I didnt know if whitelist_from was enough.
--Mike
Yes I did mean spamd.
Thanks,
--Mike
From: Matt KettlerSent: Tue 1/13/2004 7:39 AMTo: Mike Carlson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Rules Score
At 07:19 AM 1/13/04 -0600, Mike Carlson wrote:
>Do you have restart spamassassin if you change a score on a rule?
I assume you m
Do you have restart spamassassin if you change a score on a rule?
--Mike
Brian McGroarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 01/12/04 at 23:37:
> What's the proper way to suggest a new filter to the SA developers?
>
> I'm getting a TON of mail with a bunch of random uncommon-but-real
> words to thwart Bayesian filtering, combined with a single picture
> link. Spama
I need to make some entries in whilist_from_rcvd. But the only hostnames in
the Received: header that I can trust, are not resolveable. Does that
matter? Is it a simple pattern/string match, or does SA also try to
resolve the hostname?
Like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] NTDOMAIN
I am running SA on a PIII 450 with 384 MB of RAM and it processes about 5k to 6k of messages (92% spam) a day without ever hitting swap.
--Mike
From: Andy DonovanSent: Mon 1/12/2004 10:38 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [SAtalk] SA Performance ...
Could I ask a quick poll on the # of
then setup a
recipe to delete the emails based on score or does procmail replace the
milter? This is a sitewide setup with this box being a gateway for out Notes
server so I don't have any user based preferences.
--Mike
---
This SF.net
I have ours set to 5.5. With 5.0 I had too many false positives. Our company came to the conclusion that a few missed spams were better than a few missed sales requests so we just deal with the handful of emails that get past the filter.
--Mike
From: Carl ChipmanSent: Mon 1/12/2004 9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russell Mann <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I did a lynx -dump >
>> /etc/mail/spamassassin/bigevil.cf. Hrmm...are there any special
>> requirements above and beyond what SA requires?
>>
>> - -
x -dump >
/etc/mail/spamassassin/bigevil.cf. Hrmm...are there any special
requirements above and beyond what SA requires?
- --
Mike Loiterman
grantADLER
Tel: 630-302-4944
Fax: 773-442-0992
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key 0xD1B9D18E
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
;t write down who posted it, so I'm sorry I can't give
appropriate credit to them. I removed .uk & .in from the list since we
get mail from those two.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Eric
> Sent: F
l the rule above or below fail since the q is represented by it's
hex code in the URL? Or is the hex code translated to q for the uri
test?
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of David B Funk
> Sent: Friday, J
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Using 2.06f of bigevil and getting *lots* of these types of errors:
SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (Can't find string terminator '"'
anywhere before EOF, chunk 43. )
- ------
Mike Loiterman
grantADL
amp;& touch /var/lock/subsys/spamd
;;
Just put it between the start) and *) statements in the init script.
Then you could just enter at the command line
#service spamassassin stop
#service spamassassin debug
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAI
I did notice the misspellings in the email but shouldn't it have scored it
with *something*? It gave it a score of 0.0. That just seems very odd. Isn't
there a rule for Base64 encoded emails?
--Mike
-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
>
> Mike, If you look at Rich's X-spam status header, he's already using
> bigevil and netchecks, but at the time the message ran, the
I'll make sure I look a little more closely next time. I just copied
the message and ran it through to see what I came up with out o
to 2.61-1 but it is working so well on 2.60
and I only have a production env so I
don't have the guts to make the upgrade. Anyone on debian upgrade from 2.60 to 2.61?
Any gotchas? Please understand, I am
a linux luser and can barely do a thing in linux. (Although I catch myself typin
l.org]
Get BigEvil at
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:38 PM
> To: Spamassassin-List
&
I am running 2.61. Are these rules not enabled or something? I cannot figure out why they are not getting caught.
--Mike
From: SethSent: Wed 1/7/2004 11:32 AMTo: Mike CarlsonCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Email Not Caught
These are the rules that it flagged on my 2.60
there a way to test against that?
--Mike
email.zip
Description: email.zip
\.ca also, but I left in since that was what you
had.
Also, look at Chris' rules site for some great examples
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm
also see
http://www.exit0.us/
and the wiki for other good stuff.
http://wiki.spamassassin.org/w/
Mike
> -Ori
> Bill Larson wrote:
> Abused url
>
http://g.msn.com/1SUenus/CT?http://www.Nicole.name-williams.com/E/4156.h
tml
It works without the CT, also
Mike
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux
emember
seeing something on this before ??
Advice please.
Thank you.
Mike.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorial
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 too
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
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 10:0
I need to make some entries in whilist_from_rcvd. But the only hostnames in
the Received: header that I can trust, are not resolveable. Does that
matter? Is it a simple pattern/string match, or does SA also try to
resolve the hostname?
Like this:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] NTDOMAIN
:
Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping:
use_auto_whitelist 0
Mike
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tuto
Updated to handle new keywords in versions 2.60 & 2.61. See
<http://www.textpad.com/add-ons/syna2g.html#instructions> for
instructions on how to install if you use Textpad.
Mike
sasynfile.zip
Description: sasynfile.zip
the user is in
the whitelist. I'm no Perl guru, so I could be completely wrong. When you add an
identical key to a hash, the first one gets over written.
>BTW What happened to Mike Kuentz (1) and will we be seeing a Mike Kuentz
>(3) in the near future?
Let's hope not, the f
> btw 42??? what did you mean by that. that was very
> creepy to see,
> because i've tried to convince my brother from an early age, that the
> number 42 *haunts* me and turns up *everywhere*! that'll either be a
> very good year for me, or that's the year i'll buy the farm per se!
http://
oes it make sense what I'm asking now? I apologize if I didn't explain
it well enough originally.
Mike
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for
T_01
describe MK_BAD_SUBJECT_02 Tries hiding a nono phrase with a different
charset
score MK_BAD_SUBJECT_02 1.5
Hope that helps,
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Michael Satterwhite
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2
_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] sprintspectrum.com
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the domains are stored in a hash table
for lookups, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] is used to look up the domain in the hash
table, only one will match.
Thanks,
Mike
---
This SF
ialup sender did non-local SMTP
tflags RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP net
or?
header RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP eval:check_rbl('njabl-notfirsthop',
'dynablock.njabl.org.', '127.0.0.3')
describe RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP
tflags RCVD_IN_NJABL_
ialup sender did non-local SMTP
tflags RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP net
or?
header RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP eval:check_rbl('njabl-notfirsthop',
'dynablock.njabl.org.', '127.0.0.3')
describe RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP
tflags RCVD_IN_NJABL_
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:21:02 +, Iain Stevenson wrote
> System:
>
> Linux ppc (basicallu Yellowdog), 2.4.21 kernel
> Postfix
> amavisd-new-20030314
> spamassassin 2.6 or 2.61
> clamav-0.65
>
> System is configured to use the spamd interface to spamassassin. If
> I install the 2.6 or 2.61 ver
I am having a problem installing Spam Assassin 2.61 on perl 5.8.2. When I
go to the Spam Assassin directory and type perl makefile.pl it works fine
and asks for email or url to suspect spam report. then it said file good,
Writing makefile for mail::spamassassin, makefile written by
ExtUtils::
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:21:02 +, Iain Stevenson wrote
> System:
>
> Linux ppc (basicallu Yellowdog), 2.4.21 kernel
> Postfix
> amavisd-new-20030314
> spamassassin 2.6 or 2.61
> clamav-0.65
>
> System is configured to use the spamd interface to spamassassin. If
> I install the 2.6 or 2.61 ver
have you looked at the regex coach? <http://www.weitz.de/regex-coach/>
Available for Linix & win32
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Kirk Moore
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:40 PM
> To: G
> Is it possible to generate, say, daily and weekly reports of spamassains
> statistices? If so, where are teh logfiles stored?
>
> And does anyone have sample scripts to start from?
I use a FreeBSD system, and I dropped the following Perl script into my
/etc/periodic/daily/ directory. It could be
instructions in the activation.txt file in:
/usr/local/share/doc/spamass-milter/
It takes me about 30 minutes to get a new SA box up and running. I use them in front of Exchange and Domino servers I setup for people.
--Mike
From: CevaSent: Wed 12/17/2003 8:21 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Matt
here ;-)
Just make sure you *remove* the -L and it should work.
+----+
Mike Yrabedra (President)
323 Incorporated
Home of MacDock.com, MacAgent.com and MacShirt.com
++
W: http://www.323inc.com/
P: 770.382.1
believe you need to
have the -t flag in there for it to work.
+----+
Mike Yrabedra (President)
323 Incorporated
Home of MacDock.com, MacAgent.com and MacShirt.com
++
W: http://www.323inc.com/
P: 770.382.119
On 15 Dec 2003 12:19:38 +0200, era wrote
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:01:10 -0600, Mike Vanecek
>> I ran into this installing 2.61. I just did a --force to get around
>> it, but wondered if that was a safe approach? What is the purpose
>> of perllocal.pod and why does perl-Mai
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:30:09 -0800, Justin Mason wrote
[snip]
> >http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2569
>
> Missed that one; I've just set it to be fixed for 2.62. It seems pretty
> complex; either there's several failure cases, or nobody has yet done
> enough diagnosis to get to
from looking at the eval test that runs for that rule, it checks against
an English dictionary. Maybe you should disable the test
score SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID 0
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mika A
> Sent: F
I've been using SA for a little while now but am still not up to speed on
all it can do. We are mostly a Windows shop here so we have very few techs
who know Linux that well. We're using SPAMD to filter email and use a
Windows-based email proxy to send/receive info to/from the SPAMD host.
It d
on 12/11/03 1:08 PM, Jonathan Vanasco at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Maybe its an ichat only thing -- because everyone i know running iChat
> gets 10+ AOL IM spams a day. I'm averaging 15.
I have not gotten a single one. Guess I am lucky :-)
---
What is the safest way to resolve this 2.61 install error? Can I safely use
--force? What is the purpose of perllocal.pod?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# rpm -Uvh --test spama*.rpm perl-Mail*
Preparing...### [100%]
file
/usr/lib/perl5/site_
Afee does not get the idea to start licensing SA. That would
suck!
+----+
Mike Yrabedra (President)
323 Incorporated
Home of MacDock.com, MacAgent.com and MacShirt.com
++
W: http://www.323inc.com/
P: 770.382.1
Does anyone know how to config spamassassin to delete messages with a score above a certain
threshold?Thanks! - MDMike DunlopAWN, Inc.// www.awn.com[ e ] [EMAIL PROTECTED][ p ]
323.606.4237Mike
how would you use this? Eval's return true/false if I'm not mistaken.
So any line with a comma or period would hit.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brendan Burns
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03,
Does anyone know how to config spamassassin to delete messages with a score
above a certain threshold?
Thanks!
- MD
Mike Dunlop
AWN, Inc.
// www.awn.com
[ e ] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ p ] 323.606.4237
Does anyone know how to config spamassassin to delete messages with a score
above a certain threshold?
Thanks!
- MD
Mike Dunlop
AWN, Inc.
// www.awn.com
[ e ] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ p ] 323.606.4237
Awesome, yes it works that way for me, too. I read the man page and
thought it had been deprecated
--On Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:38 AM +1000 Peter Kiem
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So it defaults to folders already. So you would just need to do
sa-learn --spam /var/tmp/spam
and it s
I have too many files to learn, so sa-learn craps out with "bad
interpreter: Too many arguments". I am invoking 2.60 like this: sa-learn
--spam -d /var/tmp/spam/*
I used to invoke 2.54 like this: sa-learn --spam --dir /var/tmp/spam
What happened to the flag --dir ? That worked great in 2.54.
modify /etc/sysconfig/spamassassin to have the -u username option it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Nichols, William
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:04 PM
To: SA Mailing list
Subject: [SAtalk] Changing user spamd runs as
I am having
lso have this in /razor_agent.log
Dec 04 10:28:25.664589 check[118]: [ 3] Unable to connect to
66.151.150.11:2703; Reason: Bad file descriptor.
Dec 04 10:28:26.001671 check[118]: [ 3] Unable to connect to
66.151.150.11:2703; Reason: Bad file descriptor.
Any ideas on why the Milter is timing out l
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of stephane ancelot
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:40 AM
> To: Spamassassin-Talk
> Subject: [SAtalk] disable RCVD_IN_SORBS_xxx feature
>
>
> Hi,
&g
e set that will catch them.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of SqM
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:01 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] HTML rules...
>
>
> Hi!
>
> A questio
I have a false positive that I want to retrain but SA has rewritten the
body. I turned everything off that I could see that would tell SA to
re-write the body but it still does. I read that SA will still re-learn
spam that it has altered to headers but will it do it for the body? It
does look like
Not to start a text editor war, but it can be done in Textpad with a
regex search and replace. Hit F8, check the Regular Expression textbox
-> Find: \t3.0$ -> Replace with: \t1.0 (or whatever you want the score
to be).
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
spamassassin dir.
>
> I plan to just keep adding to this file!!!
>
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/bigevil.cf
Mike Kuentz, you are no longer allowed to put ideas into my head :) My
fingers now hurt! Thanks for lighting the spark!
Payment for use of this has to be more then the old evilrules.
rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] example.com
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] sergeant.org
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Billy A. Pumphrey
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk]
SA doesn't move mail. We'd need to know more about your setup to help
you out. Postfix/qmail/procmail, versions, how you get mail from your
MTA to SA, etc.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mail M
1 - 100 of 656 matches
Mail list logo
