At 11:18 AM -0500 11/6/03, Larry Gilson wrote:
I agree with the fact that the lock is not needed on spamc, but I don't
understand why this would produce an error. There are a lot of individuals
that use the lock with both spamassassin and spamc as a load control. Is it
possible that by using
I think you may be putting a lock on the recipe that runs spamc - you
don't want to do that. The only time you need to lock in procmail is
when you're writing to a file that might be called by multiple
procmail processes at one time.
So, instead of:
:0 fw:
| spamc
you want:
:0 fw
At 7:58 AM -0800 10/30/03, Robert Abatecola wrote:
Has anyone else noticed a hugs increase in the amount of spam
lately? In the last month or so the volume has more than doubled and
a very large portion of it gets through spamassassin 2.41.
A month ago, we were seeing about 6-7 spams a
I had something very similar to this a few days ago - the bastard was
running through every possible email address: a b c ... z aa ab ..
zy zz aaa ... zzz. He was up into low 4-letter combos before I
discovered it. Fortunately, though, he was using two IPs that I was
able to blackhole. I
12 hits here, out about 150 spams yesterday.
At 10:35 -0800 02/06/2003, Steve Thomas wrote:
No hits in 47M of spam here, either.
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Theo
| Van Dinter
| Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:04 PM
| To:
I don't believe there's a way to do that, but I sure would love to see
some individual scores in that header just to show what's going on.
On Wednesday, Oct 16, 2002, at 10:33 America/Anchorage, Tim Provencio
wrote:
Is there a way to add the scores to the tests that were done? For
At 07/12/2002 15:12, Collins, Elizabeth wrote:
Howdy,
I am new to SpamAssassin but I recently inherited the company wide spam
filtering stuff. I have been expirimenting w/ my own rules. I like to
leave the stock rules files as they are, but I want to change some of the
rules therein. I
At 07/02/2002 21:24, Kenneth Porter wrote:
In /etc/procmailrc I have:
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc -u spamd
Before adding the -u to spamc, no processing appeared to happen, and log
What's the right way to get per-user configs in this setup?
I believe you can fix this by addding
DROPPRIVS=yes
At 07/03/2002 03:51, Brandon L. Griffith wrote:
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But still, it filters her emails out. Did I misread something somewhere
or might there be another issue at hand here?
Quotes aren't needed (and probably aren't valid), and spaces are used to
At 06/30/2002 05:32, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
I'm storing user preferences in a database. The default hit is 8.0 currently
(will shortly be back to 5.0) and spamc is getting called from procmail
(which is getting called from qmail/vpopmail) thusly:
now user steve has an entry in the userpref
At 06/30/2002 14:25, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
Sorry for the noice, but even something as simple as finding the local version
of sendmail.mc nearly drow me nuts, so I thought I'd ask if anyone's had the
displeasure of setting up SA on a RaQ3 so that forwarded (as set up with the
webUI) e-mails
At 06/27/2002 22:13, Steve Wingate wrote:
Hello,
I'm using the p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.30 port on FreeBSD along with
procmail 3.22. I'm having a few problems. I have this in my
~/.procmailrc file (procmail has been working fine for a long while)
# Added for SpamAssassin
:0fw
| spamassassin -P
At 06/23/2002 08:17, Jim Howard wrote:
What I'd like to do is modify this rule so that it sends good mail to my
inbox, but also forwards it to another internet address, namely that of my
wireless device.
Hi Jim,
Add something like this to the end:
:0 c
! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beware,
At 06/21/2002 17:49, Danita Zanre wrote:
Unfortunately, we also get complaints from customers saying I
purchased such-and-such and was told that I would receive information
about upgrades - I see there's an upgrade and I didn't hear from you -
and we check and they have unsubscribed, or they did
At 06/14/2002 11:26, Jeff Campbell wrote:
Mainly, our worries fall into the realm of load.
Are there any similar web hosts or ISPs currently using SpamAssassin in
a production environment? Smaller but still significantly sized web
hosts or ISPs?
We handle about 1/2 million incoming mail
At 06/12/2002 06:17, Debbie Doerrlamm wrote:
My server is a Cobalt Raq4. I have several users who have .forward files in
their user directory. I have noticed that mails sent using .forward files
are NOT passed through SA.
The GUI on the cobalt will not allow more than one address in the Forward
Hi Derrick,
At 06/10/2002 13:04, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:51:07AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
| Not true. We're starting to see spam mail with huge attachments.
What sort of attachments? What are the main identifying marks on the
messages?
Here's a nice example
At 06/10/2002 07:21, Richard J.Sears wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I have been run SpamAssassin for about 3 months now. I am running 2.20
with the MySQL database option. The server utilizes Postfix and I am
running spamd/spamc with it. What a great program!
I have noticed a problem where I will get a
At 06/10/2002 09:47, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
Anyone have any thoughts for a cool release name for 2.30?
Howabout various Hormel products? This release could be DINTY MOORE.
Pete `-_-'
Although we modern persons tend to take our electric
Forgive me if this has been asked in the past.
Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that exceeds the
maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which actually requires reading in
most of the message first - fair enough, as it's hard to determine the size when
At 06/10/2002 10:43, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that
| exceeds the maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which
| actually requires reading in most of the message first - fair
| enough, as it's hard to determine the size
the modified headers
(Subject:, X-Spam-*, maybe Content-Type:) and reduce the output on the
pipe. (Marc's local_scan() only reads the headers from that side of
the pipe and only pays attention to some of them anyways)
Then Pete Hanson said:
Actually, I think this answers my question - spamc would have
At 06/09/2002 10:30, Bryan Hoover wrote:
David T-G wrote:
Your point is taken, in that, there will always be a percentage of ISP
who are not conscientious enough to have an opinion one way or the
other, and so need a nudge in the right direction.
I suppose lately, I've had so much spam on the
At 06/09/2002 11:39, David T-G wrote:
That's one good thing about spamcop, though; yes, it's possible to screw
up (even I have accidentally submitted and sent reports for non-spam),
but at least the addresses that get pulled out are for the right places.
If I were an ISP I'd be inclined to ignore
I've been looking at the auto-whitelist code trying to figure out if it is suitable
for our environment, and it looks to me like this code may be broken. The
documentation makes reference to an auto_whitelist_threshold option, and the code in
Conf.pm does try to read this setting, but as near
25 matches
Mail list logo
