-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
passing on by request -- a patch to add more info to the syslog,
I think.
- --j.
- --- Forwarded Message
> Date:Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:42:14 +0700
> From:=?KOI8-R?Q?"äÍÉÔÒÉÊ_ðÒÏ×ÏÄÎÉËÏ?= ?KOI8-R?Q?×"?= <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> To:
Matt Kettler wrote:
> >whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Do not EVER do this. Spammers frequently forge your own domain in the
> From: line, and such email will be automatically whitelisted if you do
> this.
>
> Bad idea. Don't even consider it for a fraction of a second.
Uhh, excuse me. That
Matt Kettler said:
> At 02:05 PM 10/19/2004, Ronan wrote:
>> > (Note: antidrug is built into SA 3.0, so don't add it if you're
>> running
>> 3.0)
>> >
>>ok on that last statement - which of the rules from exit0 and
>>rulesemporium etc are included in 3.0 by default.
>>ronan
>
> From the SA 3.0 re
At 02:05 PM 10/19/2004, Ronan wrote:
> (Note: antidrug is built into SA 3.0, so don't add it if you're running
3.0)
>
ok on that last statement - which of the rules from exit0 and
rulesemporium etc are included in 3.0 by default.
ronan
From the SA 3.0 release announcement:
- Bob Menschel's "lon
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 09:57 AM 10/19/2004, Ronan wrote:
i see a limit to the regex descriptions which implement the matching
on rules... you can search for 'cunt' but this provides a problem due
to the scunthorpe affect.
I want to implement a filter that in a buffer of arbitrary length say
10 t
At 01:27 PM 10/19/2004, Lior Marantenboim wrote:
SpamAssassin is only analyzing mails coming to local users, but almost
every email that gets to that servers, is later sent to other servers
inside our VPN. So is there any way to check every mail, including those
for mails on external servers?
Integ
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:18:37PM -0400, Alicia Forsythe wrote:
> failed to parse line check_mx_delay 5
>
> whitelsist is being used and all is working just fine. Any reason lint
> is picking up on this line with 3.0?
check_mx_delay is not a valid configuration option in 3.0.
--
Random
Just upgraded to 3.0 from 2.55.
spamassassin --lint produced the following error:
failed to parse line check_mx_delay 5
this is the first uncommented line from the local.cf file auto created with SAConf 1.2.4. local.cf also contains our whitelist. The whitelsist is being used and all is
Hi everyone
I have an SMTP gateway (sendmail) in which I've installed SpamAssassin.
My main problem is this:
SpamAssassin is only analyzing mails coming to local users, but almost
every email that gets to that servers, is later sent to other servers
inside our VPN. So is there any way to check
Kelson wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I am trying to understand how SpamAssassin 3.0.0 is checking SPF on
> > messages. It seems to be checking the Return-Path: address (envelope
> > address) and not the From: address (header address). That's wrong,
> > isn't it? Shouldn't it be checking the hea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan --
I don't know of one, but that'd be a great page for the Wiki
as well, for future use ;)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/
- --j.
Dan Barker writes:
> I'm a tiny ISP (/WISP - about 50 users) and I've decided to roll out
> Spamassa
At 09:57 AM 10/19/2004, Ronan wrote:
i see a limit to the regex descriptions which implement the matching on
rules... you can search for 'cunt' but this provides a problem due to the
scunthorpe affect.
I want to implement a filter that in a buffer of arbitrary length say 10
the pattern matches t
Quoting Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Problem solved!
> When messages actually arrive from the Internet, Postfix hands off
> messages to amavisd-new+SA which let it through just fine without the
> proper score. The odd part is that messages that are in the regular
> spamcop relay (not relate
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:37:04 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote
> I am trying to understand how SpamAssassin 3.0.0 is checking SPF on
> messages. It seems to be checking the Return-Path: address (envelope
> address) and not the From: address (header address). That's wrong,
> isn't it?
No...SPF is designed
No,
I asked several times, but never got an answer.
Marco.
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Yes, I'm using spamass-milter. :\ Any ideas on when there might be a fix?
Tim
Tim Gustafson
MEI Technology Consulting, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(516) 379-0001 Office
(516) 480-1870 Mobile/Emergencies
(516) 908-4185 Fax
Yes, I'm using spamass-milter. :\ Any ideas on when there might be a fix?
Tim
Tim Gustafson
MEI Technology Consulting, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(516) 379-0001 Office
(516) 480-1870 Mobile/Emergencies
(516) 908-4185 Fax
http://www.meitech.com/
-Original Message-
From: Marco Supino [mailto
This happends with the spamass-milter, and its a known bug, no fix yet,
are you using this milter ?
Marco.
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Hello
I'm getting a lot of messages that are actually marked as SPAM, but "appear" to
not have the subject header rewritten. Further investigation reveals that these
> i see a limit to the regex descriptions which implement the matching on
> rules... you can search for 'cunt' but this provides a problem due to
> the scunthorpe affect.
The trick here is to carefully delimit your regex so that it doesn't fail
this test. There are several meta-characters you can
Unfortunately, the message attachment would be in Microsoft Outlook .MSG
format, and I don't know if that would help anyone. I'm sure I can find
another legitimate UNIX one though. I'll see what I can dig up.
Tim
Tim Gustafson
MEI Technology Consulting, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(516) 379-0001 Of
Ronan
have a look at the chicken pox rules from www.rulesemporium.
I believe they are in 3.0 by default now, also there's lots of other
rules on that site do to with commom obsfucation techniques.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Ronan wrote:
> I'm getting a lot of messages that are actually marked as SPAM, but
"appear" to not have the subject header rewritten. Further investigation
reveals that these messages have two subject headers, for example:
>
> Reply-To: "Pauline Chang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Pauline Chang" <[EMAIL PROTEC
bash-2.03$ grep 25573 /var/log/syslog.0
Oct 11 09:21:32 elisha spamd[25573]: info: setuid to nobody succeeded
Oct 11 09:21:32 elisha spamd[25573]: checking message (unknown) for
nobody:60001.
Oct 11 09:21:32 elisha spamd[25573]: clean message (0.2/5.0) for
nobody:60001 in 0.0 seconds, 13428 bytes
I'm a tiny ISP (/WISP - about 50 users) and I've decided to roll out
Spamassassin to my Email Server (IMail).
Would anybody who has done this please share with me the "Welcome to Spam
Assassin" letter you sent your users?
I'd like to introduce the new system with some documentation about:
a) Wha
It already exists, as someone else pointed out. Check out the thread...
On October 19, 2004 06:28 am, Federico Giannici wrote:
> Mathieu Nantel wrote:
> > Thanks to all who replied. This sums it up quite well and confirms my
> > doubts about the algorithm-exclusive methods. As always I appreciate
Hello
I'm getting a lot of messages that are actually marked as SPAM, but "appear" to
not have the subject header rewritten. Further investigation reveals that
these messages have two subject headers, for example:
Reply-To: "Pauline Chang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Pauline Chang" <[EMAIL PROT
Mathieu Nantel wrote:
Thanks to all who replied. This sums it up quite well and confirms my doubts
about the algorithm-exclusive methods. As always I appreciate this list's
objectivity on the topic.
OK, but if it is true that their "learnig methods" are better than SA's
Bayes, than what about c
Hello Matt,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:23:06AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> man Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
>
> uridnsbl_timeout N (default: 2)
> Specify the maximum number of seconds to wait for a result before
> giving up on the lookup. Note that this is in addition
Bill Landry wrote:
Thanks Bill, I'll give that a try, can't seem to get the
http//:rhs.mailpolice.com page to load, I'll run their ip through
whois and see if I have any luck. I already report all phishing to
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] but seems like the mailpolice
list is lacking quit a
- Original Message -
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Does anyone know of a POC to report phishing msgs that the
> > > mailpolice rbl misses?
> >
> > I sent an e-mail to a contact at MP to see who these could be sent to.
> > You can also forward them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which
> >
Since Mandrake or their friends have not come out with SA 3.0.0 yet, I thought
I would compile it. However after running Makefile.PL, and getting an
apparently good makefile, I error almost after it starts:
# perl Makefile.PL
What email address or URL should be used in the suspected-spam report
- Original Message -
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Does anyone know of a POC to report phishing msgs that the
> mailpolice rbl misses?
I sent an e-mail to a contact at MP to see who these could be sent to. You
can also forward them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which will get
them listed
31 matches
Mail list logo
