> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Vermyndax
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] stats
>
> Greetings all...
>
> I am trying to implement a way to generate statistics for
> Spam
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gary Smith
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] BigEvil Archive
>
> Chris,
>
> Not to sound real bad but you should also b
> >
> > My wget client checks for a newer file, or did I miss your point?
>
> wget "cheats". It issues a "HEAD" command, and checks the timestamp.
> If it turns out that it needs the file, then it issues a
> "GET" command for it.
>
> This obviously saves downloading the file multiple times, bu
>
> HTTP provides a straightforward way to avoid repeated
> downloads of a file that hasn't changed, by sending
> If-Modified-Since requests.
>
> Unfortunately wget doesn't yet support this, though it is
> mentioned in its TODO file. (This is with wget 1.9.1, which
> is the current
> ve
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Scott Harris
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Problems running begevil and tripwire together
>
> I think I
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Scott Harris
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Chris Santerre'
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Problems running begevil and tripwire tog
gave the error. I guess time to hit up the
mimedefang folks.
Thanks!
Scott (loving sunny SoCal 70 degree weather) Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:16 PM
> To: 'Scott Harris'; Spa
I think I've narrowed it down to this by trying different combos.
The only change I've made in the past week was to update bigevil
to 2.06i and add in the tripwire stuff (currently at 1.15). The
error is below, and I'm somewhat inclined to believe it is a memory
problem even though memory is
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mi
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Yahoo, etc
>
>
> >users that are constantly reminding me that they get
> "absolutely no spam"
> >on th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Upwood, Jim
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:45 AM
> To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Bigevil 2.06f posted.
>
> I think he means smaller memory usage of the spamd proces
> I get a lot of these:
>
> Jan 2 14:53:38 linux1 sm-mta[22500]: i02MrVWw022500:
> from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=0, class=0, nrcpts=0,
> proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA,
> relay=200-168-30-167.dsl.telesp.net.br [200.168.30.167]
>
> Would a useful check be to reject anything where the relay
> domai
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ceva
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] send mail and spamassasin must be on the same
machime
hi e
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
Santerre
>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:42 AM
>To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
>Subject: [SAtalk] Bigevil 2.06f posted.
>
>Another update. Bunch of stragler FPs removed. Thank you Robert M!
>Fas
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Paul Barbeau
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:23 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [SAtalk] Bad Email Address
>
> I get a large number of email send to the server for users
> that have
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Billy Huddleston
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:28 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Smart SPAM
>
> I've got a complete list of domains that I used with some
> procmail scr
I get a lot of these:
Jan 2 14:53:38 linux1 sm-mta[22500]: i02MrVWw022500:
from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=0, class=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA,
relay=200-168-30-167.dsl.telesp.net.br [200.168.30.167]
Would a useful check be to reject anything where the relay domain is not
part of the sen
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Peter
Kiem
>Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11:20 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [SAtalk] First spam directed to me at my SA email alias
>> track where the spam originates. Disappointing too b
Title: First spam directed to me at my SA email alias
Oh well, I guess it was bound to happen. Got my first email addressed to the alias I use to post here. That is why I do it I guess, so that I can track where the spam originates. Disappointing too because now it will get sold and soon t
Is there a comprehensive list of products that use SA?
I see the comments at: http://www.spamassassin.org/where.html
That state:
Where SpamAssassin Is Used
This Page Is Obsolete!
Since the number of products that support SpamAssassin(tm) have massively
increased, I'm now tracking this data on th
> >
>
>
> This block of text has been going around for nearly 3-4 years
> or more. It's not the same spam law that recently got signed
> for the US.
> The legit mailer using this SHOULD NOT be using this text.
>
>
>
>
As a point of clarification, I thought it would be useful for people
t
> >
>
>
> This block of text has been going around for nearly 3-4 years or more.
> It's not the same spam law that recently got signed for the US.
> The legit mailer using this SHOULD NOT be using this text.
>
>
>
>
As a point of clarification, I thought it would be useful for people
to k
I wanted to stir up some conversation about spam laws, disclosure
and bulk emails/mailing lists.
I have a user who subscribes to a few mailing lists and they have
recently started adding the following disclosure to the emails they
send:
***
This me
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Scott Williams
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:10 PM
> To: Scott Williams
> Cc: Spamassassin-List
> Subject: [SAtalk] Spammer causing Denial Of Service
>
> I was looking at the SA logs and
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gary Funck
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:51 AM
> To: Spamassassin List
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] bigevil 2.04 posted
>
>
> Hi Chris, welcome back. I've been running with the prior
> ver
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Justin
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:08 AM
> To: Brian Sneddon
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin and SendMail
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Brian Sneddon wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Lentz, Wayne
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 7:38 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [SAtalk] Help with Mark Motley's perl script
>
> Guys,
>
> I'm trying to use the perl script that M
Title: Spam that got through question
The spam attached has the following random words at the bottom:
automata childhood reflectance trevelyan tile captious hollingsworth cornstarch chinaman chicanery
Is this to try to poison bayes or to just try and fool things to get it through or some
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chris Santerre
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:18 PM
> To: 'Chris Barnes'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Re: BIG HUGE EVIL RULE NEWS
> >
> >
> > I'm too embarrassed to tel
Title: Big huge evil rules FP question
Should I post what I believe are FPs here? I've got one that fired two rules and I'm not quite sure.
Thanks,
Scott
Title: Big huge evil rules FP question
Should I post what I believe are FPs here? I've got one that fired two rules and I'm not quite sure.
Thanks,
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chris Santerre
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:18 PM
> To: 'Chris Barnes'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Re: BIG HUGE EVIL RULE NEWS
> >
> >
> > I'm too embarrassed to tel
Title: Interesting about BIG HUGE EVIL RULEs
Never mind about this, from another thread learned that
it is just working as advertised. Over anxious I
guess.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott HarrisSent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:04
Ahh, that would explain my previous post then. Never mind I guess!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Western,R&D Aust
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] BIG HUGE E
Title: Interesting about BIG HUGE EVIL RULEs
Because I don't have sourceforge whitelisted, 6 of the last 20 messages to the list were labeled as spam.
Rules that hit were:
3.0 BigEvilList_70 BODY: Generated BigEvilList_70
3.0 BigEvilList_150 BODY: Generated BigEvilList_1
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Rick Macdougall
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:17 PM
> To: 'SA List'
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] BIG HUGE EVIL RULE NEWS
>
> Peter P. Benac wrote:
>
> > I have been using Emacs for almos
Doesn't anyone use VI anymore?!! :-)
Sorry, couldn't resist adding to the war.
:%s/old stuff/new stuff/g
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Kuentz (2)
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:46 AM
To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
Subje
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kai
MacTane
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] AT&T PATENTS ANTI-ANTISPAM TECHNOLOGY
At 11/19/03 10:42 AM , Steve Thomas wrote:
>I read this on TheRegis
I received 4 of the emails like the one addressed in the log file below. I
have [EMAIL PROTECTED]
blocked via sendmail's virtusers file. Notice the To: is
to=<00-ALLBouncesOnly0603-0-4999.txt:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Somehow this is circumventing my local virtusers, then the first part is
be
>
> >2. My compnay wants to block all swears (dont ask me why!)
> How can this
> >be done?
>
> Write some custom rules with high scores:
>
> bodyLOCAL_SWEARWORD1/\bf***\b/i
> score LOCAL_SWEARWORD1 10.0
>
> Substitute f*** for your favorite swear word.. Be sure to
> frame you
I got tired of more or less manually grabbing ham and spam from special
accounts and just implemented the public folder setup also. I created the
ham and spam public folders for users to drag stuff into and then
implemented the scripts at:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=spamassassin-talk&m=104806
I turned mine off today for just that reason. A lot of the legitimate
mailing lists were being blocked. Unfortunately now I'm starting to see the
opt*, lf* and ls* coming back. After a week of testing I'm VERY please to
not have to add those to my site RBL, but very dissatisfied with dropping
le
h dropping legitimate mailing lists and other relays.
Scott
Scott Harris
Synthys
6120 Paseo Valiente
Carlsbad, CA 92009
760.579.0118
Fax: 309.214.7721
E-Mail/IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug
Crompton
Sen
I turned mine off today for just that reason. A lot of the legitimate
mailing lists were being blocked. Unfortunately now I'm starting to see the
opt*, lf* and ls* coming back. After a week of testing I'm VERY please to
not have to add those to my site RBL, but very dissatisfied with dropping
le
43 matches
Mail list logo
