n his website today, but I'll keep a look
out. Here's his site:
http://people.redhat.com/cturner/
Scott Langley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Administrator
Rural Network Services
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkG
://spamassassin.org/devel/sa-user-admin-0.1.tar.gz
If you extract them, you find that they both date back to January 2002.
Does anyone have anything newer or improved they would like to share, or
should I start from those?
Thanks.
Scott Langley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Administrator
Rural Network
s (like ourselves) that don't want the newest
untested code.
If something like this DOES exist, someone point me to it :)
Scott
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
we collapse spaced-out single letters before
testing? I'm no regex expert, so I don't know what the cpu cost of these
changes would be.
-- Spam follows -
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 4 09:32:37 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from l
skatoon, SK CANADA Linux Support, Web Programming
306-221-7393Network Security, Firewalls
> On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 07:59, Scott Walde wrote:
> > The following one got through. I changed CALL_888 to:
> >
> > body CALL_888
>/(?:call|dial).{1,15}8(?:88|77|66
On 4 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Yeah, I just looked it up online:
Sorry, hit send before I saw this.
> I'll cover all of those prefixes in a single rule and rescore with the
> GA.
Please also notice: I'm looking for either '-'es or ' 'es in the phone
number as the spam I got was in the fo
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :)
How about "SpamAssassin: Reduce your spam by 581%"?
ttyl
srw
--
Walde TechnologyNetworks, Internet, Intranets
Saskatoon, SK CANADA Linux Support, Web Programming
1.
I would have hope this had been flagged as real spam, so why the large
negative hit total?
Scott Nolde
GPG Key 0xD869AB48
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Thus sayeth the previous author:
>Date: 14 Feb 2002 17:51:39 -0800
>From: Craig Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Scott Nolde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [SAtalk] negative hit total?
>
>Is the email from @yahoo.com or yahoo-
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> >> Actually, this raises an interesting issue with AWLs where it'll have
> >> no way of knowing you're you and not someone else with whom you
> >> regularly correspond, which is probably bad, because as you point
> >> out, the spammer can easily say th
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Shields wrote:
> Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this is that rules which are really non-discriminators end up sometimes getting
> > odd-looking scores. For example, CYBER_FIRE_POWER is just not likely to really
> > be worth -4.020 if looked at in isola
porating "fuzzy" hashes into Razor
using the nilsimsa algorithm. (See http://freshmeat.net/projects/nilsimsa/
for more information.)
I think the fuzzy matching would be much more appropriate for detecting spam
than a checksum or SHA hash.
-Scott
__
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:14:18AM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Scott Doty wrote:
> > One of our senior system administrators, Kelsey, has had contact with Vipul
> > -- I understand Vipul is working on incorporating "fuzzy" hashes into Razor
> &g
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:20:46PM -0800, Scott Doty wrote:
>
> I wasn't aware that nilsimsa required one to check against all the
> hashes in the database. I take it there's no way to index the hashes
> to speed up matches? (e.g., maybe only check hashes that have ap
ains showing in the test as listed in your post. "Kill 'em all and let
/dev/null sort 'em out!", sez I.
While most people were not as vociferous in their support of the test, the
message seems to be that some inspection of tld's would be appreciated.
-Scott
___
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> If you delete one path, delete /etc/mail/spamassassin. I don't know what
> distribution has /etc/mail and what software supports this, but Debian
> certainly does not. (Wouldn't it be stupid to have an /etc/mail with just
> spamassassin stuff in it?)
w
s and such.
So far, response has been good...
-Scott Doty
CTO, Sonic.net
Nick Handle: SCD
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
ew -f -d spamcan -p 783
...I'm assuming that spamc is timing out, and the procmail failsafe flag
is taking over.
Has anyone else seen this problem?
Also, our spamd is patched to avoid the cpu-churning regex problem.
Thanks,
-Scott
___
Spam
ly large about these messages.
I've noticed an increase since ORBZ went off the wire -- I've commented out
that check in spamd, we'll see if that gets it.
-Scott
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.s
rt looking?
---
Scott Baker - Webster Internet
Network Engineer
503.266.8253
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
red by a satire piece. For shame, doc.
-Scott
"George W. Bush chastised Microsoft for exporting e-mail monitoring
jobs when the US had a fully staffed FBI already in place."
-From the article
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PRO
ed as "possible
> unsolicited commercial mail"?)
Or for that matter, "Spamassassin thinks this is spam"?
BTW, a minor nit: not all spam is commercial -- I prefer "unsolicited bulk
email"...
-Scott
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 07:09:13PM -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
> The "broken" recipe looks like this:
[...]
> # Tag spam, pass non-spam untouched.
> :0fw
> | /home/kevinc/bin/spamc -p 7783
Add a "-f" (filter) to spamc so it passes the message alo
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:14:32AM +0100, Tony Evans wrote:
> As a totally frivolous query, what's the highest score anyone's seen on
> [legitimate] incoming SPAM [using the default SA scores]?
>
> I've seen scores in the low 30's.
45.1
http://www.soni
e
Note that "yourmailbox", if it's the default inbox for procmail, should be
cleared before you run the procmail loop.
(Note: I have this all scripted out with procmail using ".filemailrc", so
that I can automagically file away messages from my inbox after reading.)
-Scott
bustmail.pl
Description: Scott's Mail Buster
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 03:16:51PM -0700, John Lang wrote:
> Should this work?
>
> whitelist_from*@my-cast.com, *@elitepc.com
Try
whitelist_from *@my-cast.com
whitelist_from *@elitepc.com
-Scott
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing li
5 (23%)
>
> I'm seeing great hit rates too. So far so good!
Unfortunately, I'm seeing a remarkable increase in spamd timeouts (from
which the procmail defaults to delivery without any SA header lines) -- I
suspect the DCC server is impacted?
-Scott
__
t the spamd timeouts, he thinks it's
razor hanging it...
I just set my RAZOR_CHECK score to 0.0, we'll see if that gets it.
-Scott
___
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. Yo
Setup my cobalt raq4 with redhat 6.2 and newest release of spamassassin.
Everything works great. Except the startup script. It starts the application
fine. However stopping it does not work. I modified it to just kill the
process dead but that is not ideal. Anyone have any insight?
The original s
Matt I have installed SpamAssassin on both the cobalt RaQ3 and RaQ4
To install I downloaded the RPM from this URL.
http://www.hughes-family.org/spamassassin/
Specifically this one
http://www.hughes-family.org/spamassassin/spamassassin-2.20-1.i586.rpm
The only thing that does not work correctly
Ok now I remember this. It is easy to fix. Here is what needs to be done.
Don't give up ;-) it is worth the effort when you are done.
The RPM installs the files your system is looking for in
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm
This is not the path that your perl is looking for th
k] Installing on a Raq; failed--compilation aborted
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:29:42AM -0700, Jim Scott wrote:
> > Move these files like this.
> >
> > cp -r /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/
> > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Mail/
> > cp -r /usr/lib/perl5/site_p
$seconds1)*100 + ($microseconds2-$microseconds1);
push(@times, $et);
}
@t2 = sort(@times);
printf "%9d ASCII_FORM_ENTRY\n", $t2[5];
--- end test script ---
Those who are interested might want to look at
www.spamwolf.com/sa/test_maker.html
Scott Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
__
How does one go about viewing the email addresses in the users whitelist? Is
there a utility to view this?
Jim
___
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Ema
1. Since I am now using spamassassin and it is now putting all the messages
tagged as spam in a folder called caught spam. How can I then use the
spamassassin -r to report all messages in that mbox file? I assume that if I
use spamassassin -r < caughtspam it will report it all as one big message?
Perhaps there would be a way to detect this message better as spam?
Jim
--- Begin Message ---
Title: notepad.gif
You are receiving this email from Blue Chip Brands. If you would prefer not to
receive messages of this sort in the future, please see the unsubscribe instructions
at the b
Definately something wrong with this one.
Jim
--- Begin Message ---
Title: Is your laser printer costing you more than you thought
Is your laser printer, copier, fax, or Inkjet printer
costing you more than you thought? Perhaps we can help !!We can save
you up to 70% on toner cartrid
of data,
even with no repeats. Even 100,000 spams aren't going
to impact the database enough to warrent trimming.
Scott Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download
HOST Uses %-escapes inside a URL's hostname
score HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST 1.849
I think ESCAPES_DIGIT /%3[0-9]/ might be a good test too,
and not just inside URIs. Escaping /any/ character that
doesn't need to be is suspect.
Scott
Does anyone have a rule for matching the Klez virus? Normally I wouldn't
confound spam protection with virus protection, but this is one I want to
head off before it even gets downloaded.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technol
At 05:02 PM 5/20/02 -0500, Shane Williams wrote:
>On Mon, 20 May 2002, Peter Scott wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a rule for matching the Klez virus? Normally I wouldn't
> > confound spam protection with virus protection, but this is one I want to
> > head off b
n transmit, they convert to CRLF.
But there is a general agreement that no changes to the body
of an email should be done unless they are required or requested.
As long as this is a user selectable option, I don't see any
problem with it, though some might claim the default should be "
At 09:08 AM 5/26/02 -0500, dman wrote:
>On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 06:53:08PM -0700, Scott Nelson wrote:
>| At 11:01 AM 5/25/02 -0500, dman wrote:
>| >
>| >That sounds bad to me. I clearly recall a section of RFC821 stating
>| >that an MTA MUST not mangle a message in any
is could be parsed into parts for rules checking.
i.e.
headerIS_ADDRESSED_TO_ME To =~ /$local_email/
describe IS_ADDRESSED_TO_ME To: contains your email address
score IS_ADDRESSED_TO_ME -3.0
headerIS_FROM_MY_DOMAIN From =~ /$local_domain/
describe IS_FROM_MY_DOMAIN From s
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Fw: Does Size Really MatterWGXP
In a recent survey conducted by Durex condoms, 67% of
women said thatthey are unhappy with the size of their lovers. Proof that
size doe
I am using versin 2.20 and installed Razor and I see spamassassin is now
using it. I would like to also use DCC however after installing it per
Readme I do not see any indication that it spamassassin is using it as well?
Does DCC work with version 2.20?
Also what would need to be done if I ever w
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] DCC and Razor usage
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 08:39:53AM -0700, Jim Scott wrote:
> > Does DCC work with version 2.20?
>
> Not directly (you'd have to patch 2.20 to add the
Any chance someone is willing to share some code to put together a nice web
inteface for end users to configure personal settings for SpamAssassin on
Redhat 7.x with MySQL and PHP or perhaps even just a perl script?
I know there is some stuff included with SpamAssassin but they dont seem to
meet
Also on the RaQ4 you will need to set special permissions just to even get
the .procmailrc file to work in each users directory.
This is what I had to do.
chmod 711 usersdir
chmod 644 .procmailrc in each users directory.
userdir being the directory of the user you want to setup a .procmailrc fil
- Original Message -
From: "Arr MiHardies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:49 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] A couple questions regarding spamassassin
> Just a couple quick spamassassin questions. I've checked through the
> docs, and cant seem to find w
- Original Message -
From: "rODbegbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Fw: [Razor-users] Announce: Vipul's Razor v2
rODbegbie wrote:
> Off to do a build now. I'll report back on how it does with SA later.
Initial
PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Fw: [Razor-users] Announce: Vipul's Razor v2
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:55:07PM -0700, Jim Scott wrote:
> debug: Razor is available
> debug: Razor Agents 1.20, protocol version 2.
As I just posted (crossed in the ether), SA is using
How come this list does not have the reply to: set to the spamassassin list?
Every time I want to reply to the list I have to type in the email address.
Or as I see others do they use the reply to all feature and then the user
and the list gets a copy.
Is it just me?
Jim
_
Just upgraded my test box and while running in debug mode I am seeing these
messages. Does this indicate that it is not looking up these lists? I looked
in 50_scores.cf and they are not set to 0. Is there some setting now that
you need to use to turn this on? What does it mena by "but did not get
Ok I have just installed on a new machine SpamAssassin 2.30 and Razor 2.x
and SpamAssassin is reporting that razor is not found. Does the version of
SpamAssassin support Razor 2.x? Or am I required to install an older version
of Razor? I thought I heard someone early say that Razor 2.x also instal
$Id: SpamAssassin.pm,v 1.94
2002/06/14 23:17:15 hughescr Exp $)
X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_102443564316318=_"
Jim Scott
Infoconex Online Services
http://www.inf
Undefined subroutine &main::pod2usage called at /usr/bin/spamassassin line
59.
When running compiling the new version from CPAN and running spamassassin -h
I get the above error.
Jim Scott
Infoconex Online Services
http://www.infoconex
mAssassin version 2.30
Undefined subroutine &main::pod2usage called at /usr/bin/spamassassin line
59.
--
Kind Regards,
David A. Flanigan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.flanigan.net
-- Original Message ---
From: "Jim Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PR
ified as spam (as
in the example above) and in those that shouldn't. Can anyone tell me
what Program failure (-9) indicates?
--
Mike Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:09:41 -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1.20 is really really old. It was old before I started using SA. Try
>upgrading to 2.31 first.
Sorry, typo. It's 2.20.
--
Since there doesn't seem to be any amavis mail list, I guess this
would be the best place to ask this... I want to run SA via the
amavisd-new script, under RH 7.3. I managed to compile
amavisd-new, but when I try to run "amavisd" from the command
line (as root), I get an error saying it can't lo
>From: Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> "SH" == Scott Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>SH> line (as root), I get an error saying it can't locate
>SH> Razor/Client.pm in @INC. Well, actually, I don't think I want
Francesc, the best solution is to read the document that
describes this. Try this: man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
> I want that spamd don't scan emails send to some address, for example
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] I supose that I've to added in my
>conf spamassassin file (/etc/mail/spamassassin/loc
I'm running SA 2.31 with postfix and amavisd-new as a anti-spam
mail filtering server. It is working quite well, but I
notice some emails get through the system which are clearly spam,
and the logs show that they were allowed through because the
sender was whitelisted. But I have not whitelisted
>From: Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>SH> I'm running SA 2.31 with postfix and amavisd-new as a anti-spam
>SH> mail filtering server. It is working quite well, but I
>
>Amavisd-new has its own SMTP sender whitelist. Check your
>amavisd.conf file.
Sorry, I neglected to mention. I have looked
I know it sounds unlikely, but it really seems to happen. Here's
an example. First, some of the header/envelope info from an
email that got through SA (recipient address and domain altered):
Received: from mail1.somecompany.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost
(mail1.somecompany.com [127.0.0.1]) (ama
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Justin Mason wrote:
>> I know it sounds unlikely, but it really seems to happen. Here's
>> an example. First, some of the header/envelope info from an
>> email that got through SA (recipient address and domain altered):
>
>We don't use this format:
>
>> Sep 25 14:27:25 mail1
n't seem to be getting the DJB magic incantations right for running
spamd under daemontools. Would someone care to tell me how it should be
configured?
My users love SpamAssassin. They kill me when it's down for 10 minutes.
Thanks!
--
Scott LambertKC5MLE
13-15 | ***
15-17 | *
17-19 | *
19-21 | **
20-50 | **
something like that?
Easy to do with a quick perl or awk script. Send it to your self as
e-mail or embed it in a web page as PRE section.
--
Scott LambertKC
ssages about adjusting the "auto-whitelist.dir" database
file directly... that's a great one-time fix but doesn't work on-going.
Is there a setting to turn off AWL for my domain?
Thanks
-scott
---
This sf.net email is s
had 20257 non-spam messages and 24260 spam messages.
54.496% spam messages.
Here is a typical weekend report:
SpamAssassin statistics for 2002/10/20:
Time spent processing all messages: 32233
Total messages processed: 28454
Average processing time per message: 1.13281
A
se
but, until then, it is not a major burden to us to add the entries for
the users who need/want special settings.
--
Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This sf.net email is
bert/SpamAssassin/ if anyone wants to
look.
--
Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future
of Java(TM) technology. Join the Ja
ly for my ISP in that configuration. We haven't seen any
appreciable load increase on the mail servers since beginning use of
SpamAssassin site wide.
--
Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:48:18AM -0400, Andrew wrote:
> Scott Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have a similar number of accounts on my mail server. I have a P4 1.5GHz
> > 1G RAM Dell workstation running spamd. The box coasts most of the day and
> >
now if that information is helpful to your situation.
--
Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future
of Java(TM) technology. Join t
Linux so
you can offload the spamassassin checks. You can do that for cheap.
--
Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future
of Java(
Now, how do we detect something like this gem?
--
X-From-Line: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 12 22:32:50 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8874A9B8
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 12 Sep 2002
could lead to a
multiplicitave/exponential blowup in the rules, but should only occur
in contrived cases.
Now with this, we can handle DNS based blacklists for things like
URL's with blamk spots for randomized portions of the URL.
Scott
---
so
I got it) either bitching or shouting out "remove", including at least
one person at acm.org.
Anyone know if yahoo allows arbitrary membership in new lists, and
someone used that as a backdoor?
Scott
---
This sf.net email is sponsored
On Jan 24, Shane Williams wrote:
> So, with all the traffic over the last 48 hours, I'm feeling a bit
> confused. It seems clear that the official 2.0 release had a few
> bugs. Are fixes to those bugs being rolled into the 2.0 code, or only
> being applied to the 2.1 code?
Ditto; I was just ab
On Jan 25, Justin Mason wrote:
> Here's 2.01, a bugfix release for 2.0, since whitelist_to etc. were
> not working.
>
> http://SpamAssassin.org/downloads.html
An outstanding effort: thanks very much, speaking only for myself as a
overly-paranoid mailserver owner.
I do think that this i
I'm running SA 2.31 with amavisd-new and postfix on a RH 7.3 server for
site-wide spam control. I have mail coming from a particular web server
that uses forms to create emails to our company. The sender fills in their
own email address, so the Received From and Reply To data can be anything,
var
I sent this email a couple of days ago, and no response. Doesn't anyone
know of a way to do this? Is this not possible? (I can't believe that!)
Help?
-Original Message-----
From: Scott Henderson
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:13 PM
I'm running SA 2.31 with amavisd-new
I can sure try that, thanks. And to do this by mail server name, I would
just replace the IP address stuff with /servername/right?
(I don't know reg exp, what's the ~ for?) (And no funny answers, guys, this
is a CLEAN mailing list :)
Thanks!!
>From: Steve Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
OK, and this should go in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, right?
>| I can sure try that, thanks. And to do this by mail server name, I would
>| just replace the IP address stuff with /servername/right?
>Yep - make sure to escape any periods or dashes (put a backslash
>in front of it), as t
86 matches
Mail list logo
