I ran with this configured into my spamd startup incantation. I noticed
about 6 out of 200 spams would leak right through without any Spam
markings whatsoever. If I subsequently fed them to spamassassin -t foo,
spamc foo, or even procmail foo they were checked and received high
scores. I do not
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyncid=738e=1u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_hi_te/spam_lawsuit
Sat Dec 18, 3:25 PM ET
Technology - AP
DAVENPORT, Iowa - A federal judge has awarded an Internet
service provider more than $1 billion in what is believed to be
the largest
for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
t/spf...Not found: helo_pass = SPF_HELO_PASS
# Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
Not found: pass = SPF_PASS
# Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
From: Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyncid=738e=1u=/ap/20041218/ap_
on_hi_te/spam_lawsuit
Sat Dec 18, 3:25 PM ET
Technology - AP
DAVENPORT, Iowa - A federal judge has awarded an Internet
service provider more than $1 billion in what is
for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
t/spf...Not found: helo_pass = SPF_HELO_PASS
# Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
Not found: pass = SPF_PASS
# Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
I recently upgraded my spamassassin 2.64 to 3.02 on three machines (two
Solaris, one FreeBSD).
The Solaris installs went according to the upgrade notes/wiki, but the
FreeBSD machine was a bit different, in that It required the Storable
module from CPAN.
once I installed it, it went smooth.
just
Loren Wilton wrote:
for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
t/spf...Not found: helo_pass = SPF_HELO_PASS
# Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
Not found: pass = SPF_PASS
# Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
Hi,
I ran with this configured into my spamd startup incantation. I noticed
about 6 out of 200 spams would leak right through without any Spam
markings whatsoever. If I subsequently fed them to spamassassin -t foo,
spamc foo, or even procmail foo they were checked and received high
scores. I do
Hi Richard,
First and foremost, I found it necessary to upgrade to perl 5.8.x. The
earlier version (5.6.1 -- installed with Debian) was insufficient for
running Spamassassin under Amavis under my configuration.
what do you mean by insufficient? Did you receive error messages or what
type of
From: alan premselaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Loren Wilton wrote:
for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
t/spf...Not found: helo_pass = SPF_HELO_PASS
# Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
Not found: pass = SPF_PASS
# Failed
I think my impression of the note I saw was that this was considered
annoying and that someone ought to look at it. (That impression may be
wrong, as I said, I really wasn't paying a lot of attention.)
So this almost certainly is still a problem in 3.02, since that was just
released in the last
Hi,
3.0 requires a higher version of Perl than 2.63 did. I don't recall the
exact version required, but I know it is somewhere in the release or upgrade
notes. Vague memory says that maybe 5.6.2 was the magic number; but that
could be wrong.
I just checked it - 5.61 is sufficient, according to
I'm getting errors when I try to use SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (and the same
errors with 3.0.1), on Mac OS X 10.3.7. Specifically, when I call it
from a command line with no arguments (same as if I give it -t
sample-spam.txt):
$ spamassassin
Global symbol $re_strict requires explicit package name
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Maurice Lucas wrote:
Why isn't there an announce from the announce list?
Probably stuck in a moderation queue somewhere. I'm pretty sure I
sent one there.
Michael
pgppz54puBsJ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 10:48:07AM -0500, Brian Kendig wrote:
And when I call it from my Exim 4.43 mail server through SA-Exim, these
errors appear in my mail.log:
spamd[16237]: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 54762
spamd[16245]: processing message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for
Me new email host is using SA 3.0.1 and I have been watching what gets
caught and what doesn't so I can do some user_prefs tuning if necessary.
But I don't understand what is going on with this AWL stuff. The host
service has it turned on and I get a non-spam message with this score
report in
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
if it's in a WL?
You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:52:31 +0100, Maurice Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
By just checking the SA website I found out that there is a 3.0.2 release
from 2004-12-16.
Why isn't there an announce from the announce list?
The last announcement that I received from the SpamAssassin-announce
list was
18 matches
Mail list logo
