Matt Thoene Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 2:09 PM
> Sorry for this, I stopped receiving spamassassin-talk emails late
> Friday night...
Doesn't look like anyone's been getting them. Either that or we all decided
to take a break this weekend. Any theories? There's nothing in the archive
at gman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Chris,
Tuesday, December 16, 2003, 9:34:48 PM, you wrote:
CA> Is there a way to get a report or log of the test
CA> results hits that spamassasin finds. ...
I've begun to do something like this using the mass-check functionality
within SA's ma
> From: Chris A
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:35 PM
>
> Is there a way to get a report or log of the test
> results hits that spamassasin finds. The idea is I
> want to better fine tune the values assigned to cretin
> tests. However it is hard to narrow down just which
> test are getting hi
Or perhaps you can use the existing HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE rule?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew
Sent: 15 November 2003 22:37
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Test Suggestion
HTML_FONT_COLOR_WHITE
I've noticed that some spamm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Kristoffersen,
Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 8:00:07 AM, you wrote:
K> Mails that I send from my two domains: kristoffersen.us and
K> kristoffersen.no are automatically marked as spam by spamassassin.
K> After investigating the issue further,
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Kristoffersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Though I don't use spamassassin (yet), I've encountered some problems with
> others who use it.
>
> Mails that I send from my two domains: kristoffersen.us and
> kristoffersen.no are automatically marked as spam by spamassassin. After
> investiga
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Test rule in spamassassin blocks my domains
>
>
> spamassassin-talk wrote:
> > Odd-Jarle,
> >
> > How about just incorporating the Habeas warrant
spam of course ;-)).
Balam
> -Original Message-
> From: Kristoffersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Test rule in spamassassin blocks my domains
>
> Maybe it would be an ide
spamassassin-talk wrote:
> Odd-Jarle,
>
> How about just incorporating the Habeas warrant mark
> http://www.habeas.com/faq/index.htm in your e-mail headers?
>
> According to http://www.spamassassin.org/tests.html HABEAS_SWE is
> worth -4.6 points, more than enough to offset FROM_OFFERS.
I think it
- Original Message -
From: "Klaus Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Test rule in spamassassin blocks my domains
> Kristoffersen wrote:
> >
> > As you can see krist
Yes, Ken is right, my problem is that others don't get my mail.
Maybe it would be an idea to add domains that have problems like this to a
common whitelist, if one exists in the SA distribution? I don't know if
such a list is provided or exists.
Anyways, I just wanted to let the SA team know. And
Ken Gordon wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this helps him. His problem is that other people can't
> get his mail. Are you proposing that he provide all his
> correspondents with a rule that would make it possible for his email
> to circumvent SA? How will he let them know? Send them an email
> enclosing t
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 10:14 AM, Klaus Mueller wrote:
Kristoffersen wrote:
As you can see kristOFFERSen.us/.no would match this rule.
Create a rule matching exact you domain with the same negative score.
Or
add your domain to whitelist.
Klaus
I'm not sure this helps him. His probl
Kristoffersen wrote:
>
> As you can see kristOFFERSen.us/.no would match this rule.
Create a rule matching exact you domain with the same negative score. Or
add your domain to whitelist.
Klaus
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
W
At 04:58 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
>Theoretically Theo Van Dinter fixed this a long time ago in this bug:
>
>http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1475
>
>But looking at the code, the fix isn't in 2.43, 2.44, 2.50, 2.52, 2.54 or
>2.55.
it is in 2.60 though ;)
Ouch.. it's bee
Matt Kettler writes:
>At 03:49 PM 8/4/2003 -0400, Fred I-IS.COM wrote:
>>Hello,
>>I noticed an issue with 2.55 and the test for FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,
>>The reverse dns for juno customers is: untd.com
>>This causes a false positive for juno customers.
>>Thanks,
>
>Theoretically Theo Van Dinter fixed
At 03:49 PM 8/4/2003 -0400, Fred I-IS.COM wrote:
Hello,
I noticed an issue with 2.55 and the test for FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,
The reverse dns for juno customers is: untd.com
This causes a false positive for juno customers.
Thanks,
Theoretically Theo Van Dinter fixed this a long time ago in this bug:
Fred I-IS.COM writes:
> Hello,
> I noticed an issue with 2.55 and the test for FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,
> The reverse dns for juno customers is: untd.com
> This causes a false positive for juno customers.
Yeah, I think we have that fixed in 2.60.
--j.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:58:55PM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Yeech. Exempting broken MUAs is getting old. *sigh*
Well, I certainly have never done a systematic study, but, is it worth
it at all??
Every single false positive I've ever recieved, tripped over because of
an MUA test. And not
linus larsson wrote:
>>> I noticed a lot of spams have the header "Mime-Version: *.*" missing
>>> Maybe it should be rated.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> Mime-Version isn't a required header, so I'm not surprised to find
>> lots of mails without it.
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:52:42PM +0100, linus larsson wrote:
> > I noticed a lot of spams have the header "Mime-Version: *.*" missing
> > Maybe it should be rated.
>
> Mime-Version isn't a required header, so I'm not surprised to find lots
> of mails
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:52:42PM +0100, linus larsson wrote:
> I noticed a lot of spams have the header "Mime-Version: *.*" missing
> Maybe it should be rated.
Mime-Version isn't a required header, so I'm not surprised to find lots
of mails without it.
In a quick check of my corpus:
Spam: 1641
On Sunday 06 October 2002 04:58 CET Will Glass-Husain wrote:
> I'm having trouble installing SpamAssassin. I followed the directions to
> install the CPAN module (using Perl 5.8) but got the following error
>
> t/reportheader..ok
> t/spam..ok
> t/spamd.
> In your personal .spamassassin.prefs, place something like this:
> Business User: Yes
> Pornographer: Yes
> Anti-Hotmail: Yes
> ...
> etc
>
> and have these kinds of group modifications tone down the scores
> of specific
> types of tests (in this case, anything mentioning money or having
> $ in
On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 22:02, Craig Hughes wrote:
> For the envelope TO, there seem to be 2 "standards", depending on when
> the info is added to the message header. One is added on SMTP-reception
> (such as with exim I think), in which case the header used is
> "Envelope-To".
Actually any head
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 03:51:05PM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> So ... perhaps we should support both. Envelope-To (which can have
> multiple addresses in it, remember) for folks who can use it, and
> Delivered-To for folks who can't. Simple enough.
>
> The nice thing about doing it with head
On 17 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> So, for envelope from checking, we should use the "Return-Path" header.
> I'll make a rule which compares Return-Path to From: and see how it does
> at differentiating spam from nonspam.
Hadn't even thought of checking the sender - interesting. I'm curious t
Ok, I did a little bit of searching:
For the envelope FROM, RFC-1123 specifies that the mail server making
"final delivery" of a message:
MUST pass the MAIL FROM: address from the SMTP envelope
with the message, for use if an error notification message must
be
28 matches
Mail list logo
