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
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,
FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, HTML_60_70, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02
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 like this:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 07/07/03 at 22:20:
Hi All,
I've got spam assassin working like a dream on our small sendmail box.
works like a bought one.what i want to do is setup a gateway arrangment
for an Exchange Server (everyone shudders, i know).
like
Theo Van Dinter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 06/01/03 at 11:14:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 08:34:52AM -0500, Tom Meunier wrote:
I don't understand the Bayes safety zone, where it's set, and why it's
hard coded.
there. Looked in MAN SA-LEARN but didn't find anything. Anyone feel
Patrick Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 05/29/03 at 23:23:
This may be a silly question -- but why not just have Sendmail do the
LDAP account lookup itself (using the LDAP_ROUTING feature)? Seems like
it'd be quite a bit less overhead to deal with than passing stuff to a
Maxime Ritter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/29/02 at 13:27:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:00:07PM -0500, Mike Leone wrote:
if ((/^X-Spam-Status:.*Yes/))
{
echo Your Email was Rejected by our SPAM filters. Sorry.
EXITCODE=100
exit
Bob Proulx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 02:00:
Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-12-12 23:57:48 -0500]:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:56:23PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
If you really want people to reply on-list your should add a Reply-To
header that contains
Duncan Findlay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 00:40:
Fair enough, I guess. On the Debian lists, Mail-Followup-To is the
header everyone lives by. (Probably because we all use mutt)
Not everyone. :-) When I read my email from work, I do it via Squirrelmail,
a web client. At
Tom Allison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 07:36:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:07 PM -0500 Tom Allison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| My question is if anyone knows anything about running
| spamassassin/spamc/spamd under sieve.
Sure, sort
Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 15:36:
I'd say that's perfectly reasonable.. Unfortunately some of mailing lists
flat-out munge any existing reply-to's.. which is the bad part everyone
objects to.
ie: if I explicitly set a reply-to of myself because I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 18:20:
This varies depending on the MDA. With maildrop (used with Maildir), you
would have something like:
if ((/^X-Spam-Status:.*Yes/))
{
echo Your Email was Rejected by our SPAM filters. Sorry.
EXITCODE=100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 21:43:
Maybe I need to rephrase that: It informs the *sender*. What I like about
exit code 100 is that it doesn't queue the message and clog my queue.
Anyway, I've tested this. It definitely passes the echo back. Here is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/07/02 at
20:06:
I need to remove a sentence from the report SA generates. Specifically
the part about This mail is probably spam.. Apparently it's confusing
some of my users. I'm using MIMEDefang as the milter glue but
What's
Rich Duzenbury ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/25/02 at 18:43:
Auto-bouncing spam also auto-bounces FPs, and you lose legitmate mail. Tag
everything with SA, and no need to change addresses; simply route all
tagged mail to a special folder, which you check every few days. You
Mike Burger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/23/02 at 23:48:
Now, I got the same thing, but since my threshold is set to 5.0, it got
listed as spam.
Since I whitelist this mailing list, as I do for all my mailing lists, it
came thru for me. Personally, I like the way the subject line
Steve Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/20/02 at 13:18:
| X-Spam-Status is ok with Yes, hits required but how do i get rid
| of the tests= part?
procmail/formail, or hack the SA code.
| I do not want the report at all in the message body how do u get
| rid of this also?
Christoph Bieselt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/18/02 at 05:47:
Hi together,
I am using Postfix with Procmail to call SA. As usual the procmail is
called with the user defined in /etc/postfix/master.cf where the
procmail transport is specified. SA is called by the user cyrus
Ross Vandegrift ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/18/02 at 20:59:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:59:28PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
There are many mail senders out there that send ligitimate mail that
often gets flagged as spam, and finding ways to avoid being tripped up
by these types
Philip Mak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 11/18/02 at 15:44:
if (/^X-Spam-Flag: *YES/)
{
exception {
to Mail/killed
}
}
Why do you have the move to the folder as an exception, and not a direct
action of the if?
I use:
if ( /X-Spam-Status: Yes/ )
to
Christoph Bieselt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 11 11, 02 at 07:37:
I implemented spamassassin in my following environment:
- Postfix for SMTP
- Cyrus Imapd (2.0.16)
- Procmail delivery
- Spamassassin (2.43)
For postfix I changed the main.cf to:
mailbox_transport = procmail
If
* spamassassin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 14, 02 at 12:06:
How is everyone using SA? Do you auto delete spam after some high score? I
would like to find the safest score to delete spam, and keep the other mail
with smaller score.
I never auto-delete anything. :-) Losing real mail
* McClung, Darren W. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 11, 02 at 09:34:
This is OT, but pretty important. If these messenger spams are getting
through, your NetBIOS ports are open to the outside, which is VERY BAD.
Saw the same reports on the WinNT list, and one of the people there
* Jack Coates ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 05, 02 at 12:39:
To reinforce what a bad idea that is, here's an average week's worth of
false positives in my quarantine box:
three online-billing notifications (Citibank, ATT, Working Assets)
two LPI newsletters, one of which was
* Michael Moncur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 10 05, 02 at 19:09:
ok_languages en
It must be listed, that's where I got it ;-)
That's nice, but I was talking about ok_locales. Completely different thing.
Anyone know whether en is valid for ok_locales? I thought it was at one
* Florin Andrei ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 26, 02 at 23:43:
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 06:42, Vivek Khera wrote:
FA == Florin Andrei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FA (i'll describe my situation first, the questions are at the end)
FA I managed to make SpamAssassin talk to my Postfix
* Avi Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 20, 02 at 23:57:
Is SA supposed to always insert a X-Spam-Status tag?
I just started using SA + Postfix + amavisd-new and it seems to me that
SA does not insert this tag into non-spam messages. Is this correct?
Correct. Amavisd-new only
* Mike Burger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 21, 02 at 00:50:
I have X-Spam-Status in every message that SA scans.
SA scanning is different than when Amavisd-new calls SA modules to spam
scan. Amavisd-new does not call all SA modules, such as adding the
X-Spam-Status header for all
* SpamTalk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 17, 02 at 22:25:
I would sack postfix before SA. Was any attempt made to query a postfix
mailing list?
No need; see my earlier email.
msg07860/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Saw this on the postfix list; thought it might be of use. Posting to the
postfix list if you have questions that impact/interact with postfix is a
good idea.
- Forwarded message from Scott Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:08:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Henderson
31 matches
Mail list logo
