On Saturday, November 20, 2004, 11:53:52 AM, C-Store Peter wrote:
> OK, I didn´t know that.
> The only URL found in the messages body is this :
> "++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++"
And gmx.net has been whitelisted across all SURBLs since
April 2004. I believe there may
On Saturday 20 November 2004 12:34 pm, Gary W. Smith wrote:
> Try
> -m 1
>
> > I've been meaning to ask this ever since I upgraded to 3.0.1 but keep
> > forgetting. Under 2.63 I always had one spamd process running and
>
> when
>
> > Kmail called spamc a spamd child was spawned, when processing wa
From the looks of it, you don't need to install more, you've already got
too much.
First, you've got 2 copies of the rules. One where it belongs
(/usr/share/spamassassin) and one where it does not belong
(/etc/mail/spamassassin)
Second, one of the sets of rules is from SA 2.20 or older (The ru
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 22:27, Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina wrote:
> Hello,
Hello
> I got these error messages i dont know to interpret.
> Would you help me to correctly set my system up ?
[...]
> Is there something I have to install more ?
The error messages was attached.
really no idea about th
OK, I didn´t know that.
The only URL found in the messages body is this :
"++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++"
The rest is details on what I have to bring home for lunch 8-) - No URLs
included ...
Chris
- Original Message -
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try
-m 1
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:09 PM
> To: users@SpamAssassin.apache.org
> Subject: Number of spamd process running
>
> I've been meaning to ask this ever since I upgraded to 3.0.1 but keep
> forgetting. Under 2.
Cheers Mike,
Just the ticket.
Paul
On Saturday 20 November 2004 17:01, Michael W Cocke wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:58:48 +, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> > I have just upgraded my SA from 2.63 to 3.0.1, this all running on SuSE
> > 9.1 Pro.
> >
> >But I must have cocked something up, but
The URIBL_* tests are not concerned with where the mail is from;
they're examining the message *body* to see if it contains links to
websites that are commonly advertised in spam. If you remove the
entire message body as "private content" when posting the sample to
the list, you prevent anyone fro
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:58:48 +, you wrote:
>Hi all,
> I have just upgraded my SA from 2.63 to 3.0.1, this all running on SuSE 9.1
>Pro.
>
>But I must have cocked something up, but as to what I have no clue. This is
>where the community can offer some insight, Please..
>
>Upon restarting
Hi all,
I have just upgraded my SA from 2.63 to 3.0.1, this all running on SuSE 9.1
Pro.
But I must have cocked something up, but as to what I have no clue. This is
where the community can offer some insight, Please..
Upon restarting the daemon I get the following message :-
'The -a opti
Hello List,
I am running Spamassassin 3.0.1 as you can see in the copied email below.
Randomly, email is marked as spam due to RBL tests, even though the
maintainer of the whitelist claims that the domains are not in their
blacklists.
My box is running perl 5.6.1 on a 2.2.18 Kernel (originally a
On Saturday 20 November 2004 04:27, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> I gotta love it. And I see that you guys are the pros at this. But with
> network testing, I find that it really slows down Kmail, as the filtering
> is done by it, piping the messages through spamc.
Fetchmail -> [spamc] -> local /var/spo
Hello Bob,
Friday, November 19, 2004, 2:38:30 PM, you wrote:
>> Correct. (Except that it isn't compiled --- only spamc is a
>> compiled program --- but that's a nit..)
BM> Yes, I spose I knew that, but meant that I expected a reinstall
BM> using perl Makefile.pl, make, make install would sort t
Hello Rob,
Friday, November 19, 2004, 6:40:41 PM, you wrote:
RB> I am currently using SARE_OEM SARE_GENLSUBJ SARE_GENLSUBJ_ENG SARE_HTML1
RB> SARE_HTML2 SARE_HEADER1 SARE_HEADER2 SARE_HTML_ENG SARE_BML SARE_FRAUD
RB> SARE_SPOOF SARE_UNSUB SARE_RANDOM SARE_TOP_200 and BOGUSVIRUS as my
rulesets.
On Saturday 20 Nov 2004 04:27, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> > X-Spam-Level: **
> > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=53.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,DCC_CHECK,
> >
> > I have better than a 99.99% catch rate.
>
> I gotta love it. And I see that you guys are the pr
On Saturday 20 Nov 2004 02:50, alan premselaar wrote:
>I'd suggest changing it to /usr/bin/perl -T -w (instead of
> /usr/bin/perl5.8.5) to prevent the same kind of confusion should you
> ever upgrade perl again.
Thanks Alan, good idea :-)
Bob
Rob Blomquist wrote:
I run Kmail with SA 3.0.1, and I filter by piping incoming mail to spamc.
I am currently using SARE_OEM SARE_GENLSUBJ SARE_GENLSUBJ_ENG SARE_HTML1
SARE_HTML2 SARE_HEADER1 SARE_HEADER2 SARE_HTML_ENG SARE_BML SARE_FRAUD
SARE_SPOOF SARE_UNSUB SARE_RANDOM SARE_TOP_200 and BOGUSVI
On Friday 19 November 2004 10:27 pm, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> On Friday 19 November 2004 7:32 pm, Chris wrote:
> > On Friday 19 November 2004 08:40 pm, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> > > I run Kmail with SA 3.0.1, and I filter by piping incoming mail to
> > > spamc.
> >
> > X-Spam-Level:
On Friday 19 November 2004 7:32 pm, Chris wrote:
> On Friday 19 November 2004 08:40 pm, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> > I run Kmail with SA 3.0.1, and I filter by piping incoming mail to spamc.
> X-Spam-Level: **
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=53.2 required=5.0
On Friday 19 November 2004 08:40 pm, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> I run Kmail with SA 3.0.1, and I filter by piping incoming mail to spamc.
>
> I am currently using SARE_OEM SARE_GENLSUBJ SARE_GENLSUBJ_ENG SARE_HTML1
> SARE_HTML2 SARE_HEADER1 SARE_HEADER2 SARE_HTML_ENG SARE_BML SARE_FRAUD
> SARE_SPOOF SA
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> I run Kmail with SA 3.0.1, and I filter by piping incoming mail to spamc.
>
> I am currently using SARE_OEM SARE_GENLSUBJ SARE_GENLSUBJ_ENG SARE_HTML1
> SARE_HTML2 SARE_HEADER1 SARE_HEADER2 SARE_HTML_ENG SARE_BML SARE_FRAUD
> SARE_SPOOF SARE_UNSUB SARE_R
Bob Mortimer wrote:
*snip*
#!/usr/bin/perl5.8.3 -T -w
which is clearly where the problem lies.
Correcting that to #!/usr/bin/perl5.8.5 -T -w solves the problem but still
leaves me wondering how it happened in the first place.
Thanks for the help!
Bob,
I'd suggest changing it to /usr/bin/perl -
On Friday, November 19, 2004, 6:40:41 PM, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> I run Kmail with SA 3.0.1, and I filter by piping incoming mail to spamc.
> I am currently using SARE_OEM SARE_GENLSUBJ SARE_GENLSUBJ_ENG SARE_HTML1
> SARE_HTML2 SARE_HEADER1 SARE_HEADER2 SARE_HTML_ENG SARE_BML SARE_FRAUD
> SARE_SP
I run Kmail with SA 3.0.1, and I filter by piping incoming mail to spamc.
I am currently using SARE_OEM SARE_GENLSUBJ SARE_GENLSUBJ_ENG SARE_HTML1
SARE_HTML2 SARE_HEADER1 SARE_HEADER2 SARE_HTML_ENG SARE_BML SARE_FRAUD
SARE_SPOOF SARE_UNSUB SARE_RANDOM SARE_TOP_200 and BOGUSVIRUS as my rulesets.
So, I have a new patch that should greatly improve memory usage
if you have a low memory situation (where "low" == "< 100MB of
free RAM", typically ;)
It should apply cleanly to 3.0.0. I'd be very interested in
feedback from people trying it... here it is:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/sho
I've been meaning to ask this ever since I upgraded to 3.0.1 but keep
forgetting. Under 2.63 I always had one spamd process running and when
Kmail called spamc a spamd child was spawned, when processing was finished,
that child process died. With 3.0.1 I have two spamd process continuously
ru
Richard Harding wrote:
I am looking at getting messages together to train spamassassin and told
users to forward me messages that are spam that still get through. Is
this an ok method of collecting or will the fact that so many are
forwarded messages throw off the training?
In short, yes, it wil
27 matches
Mail list logo
