At 05:36 PM 6/14/2002 -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
>> SpamAssassin 2.30 (Viking dentist l'orange) Released!
>> ---
>
>Viking dentist a l'orange? OK, I guess you incoprorated my "Vikings singing
>the Spam song" into the name, plus the "
At 04:46 AM 5/28/2002 -0500, Dan A Thompson wrote:
>> I realise that it is not an intelligent thing to block mail where the
>> 'To' field doesn't mention my domain name (mailinglists etc).
>
>Actually, I've found that to be a VERY intelligent and effective thing to
>filter on, and I was rather s
At 01:36 PM 5/10/2002 -0500, David Gibbs wrote:
>Anyone know if it's possible to cause SA to treat spam with a really high
>spam score differently?
>I'd like to be able to configure a maximum spam score, which would cause
>SA to flag the message specially or just file it in a different mailbox.
>T
At 05:28 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>> I am wondering is there anyway to stop spamd creating more than X child
>> processes
>>
>
>Yes, but you need a CVS build, or apply the patch on bug 78
>http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=3
>
>Then you can use the -m
At 03:46 PM 4/3/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>You've got a new rules file hanging around somewhere still. 2.11 didn't
>understand 'uri' rules that are in CVS, which were in a newly added
>file. So re-installing 2.11 replaced most of the *.cf files, but did
>not remove the files that 2.11 never knew ab
At 01:56 AM 12/12/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>My questions then are 1) How can I rid of the *SPAM* in the Subject
>line? 2) Will this break everything? 3) Is there a simpler way around all of
>this?
>I've already tried this /etc/procmailrc:
1 - in your local.cf find the line that says this:
At 01:24 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, Phydeaux wrote:
>At 12:56 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>It's almost certainly a rule with a "bad" regex -- could you send me an
>>email with attached a sample of an email that causes the high cpu usage?
Well, obviously something *is* h
At 05:28 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 09:59:44PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I got back from a trip this evening and the mail box was running so many
>> childs of spamd that the mail box was unreachable. I
At 12:56 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>It's almost certainly a rule with a "bad" regex -- could you send me an
>email with attached a sample of an email that causes the high cpu usage?
Once it starts -- shortly after I put up the CVS version almost every piece
of mail seems to get stuck. I had
Hi, all!
Today I found one of my systems almost hung because of spamd
processes that were using lots of CPU but apparently not doing
anything. This is on a Solaris box with Sendmail. Spamd is called via a
system-wide procmail script. After this happened twice I restarted
spamd and sendmail and t
I agree with the idea to make a rule for these -- but I think .za is
nowhere near as spammy as most of the rest in the list.
reb
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
At 12:36 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
>Here are my corrected scores, in no particular order. These scores were
>derived using a highly sophisticated natural intelligence algorithm,
>namely gut instinct:
>
> score DEAR_SOMEBODY 1.0 # was -4.4
> score CASHCASHCASH1.
At 09:06 AM 2/28/2002 -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
>> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
>> any message deserves
At 08:27 AM 2/4/2002 -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
>I don't think 866, 855, 844, etc are toll free numbers. 877, 888 and
>800 are it AFAIK. Does make sense to add 877 to the 888 rule though,
>and to make the - into a [\-\s]
866 *is* toll free in the USA, just like 800, 888, 877.
reb
___
At 11:08 AM 1/25/2002 -0800, brad wrote:
>Should I remove the : after 0fw?
>
>:0fw:
>| spamc -f
>
>:0e
>{
>EXITCODE=$?
>}
That recipe doesn't deliver anything so -- yes!
reb
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourcefo
At 01:42 PM 1/15/2002 -0600, Taral wrote:
>Not on maildirs or MH boxes. And not if you're using procmail, last I
>checked.
As far as procmail goes, it just uses what was passed to it. I use procmail
as my local delivery agent with sendmail and my sendmail daemon spits
out a 'From ' line. If that
At 11:10 AM 1/15/2002 -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
>As part of implementing CHECK yesterday, I updated my systemwide SA installation and
>just noticed this morning that mail delivery broke. It seems SA started adding 'From
>' lines to the tops of all messages it processes, which causes my deliver
17 matches
Mail list logo
