Re: Headers/Score Question

In amavisd-new, the spam report header will only be added when the score is above the tag2 level. Richard Ozer wrote: No luck with $sa_spam_report_header = 1; Also, no luck changing report_safe. Both have no effect with amavis. RO - Original Message - From: "Stuart Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Headers/Score Question

No luck with $sa_spam_report_header = 1; Also, no luck changing report_safe. Both have no effect with amavis. RO - Original Message - From: "Stuart Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Richard Ozer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:29 AM Subject: Re: Headers/Score Qu

Re: Headers/Score Question

Richard Ozer wrote: I haven't found any clues on this one, so I thought I would ask the list... I use spamassassin 3.0.2 with amavisd (latest version). Everything works properly and my spam headers look something like: X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=12.975 tagged_above=3 required=6.3 tests=BAYES_99, DCC

Re: Headers/Score Question

It's not entirely clear to me if Amavis is taking responsibility for the header rewrite or if it's just passing along SA's information. I want to avoid attachments... do you happen to know that option? It's worth a try. I looked all over (including man) and couldn't find it... RO - Origin

Re: Headers/Score Question

I don't know if Amvis creates its own spam header lines or if it lets SA do it. If SA is creating these headers in the normal manner, then there is an option you can set to get the scores included in the summary line. Or if you are using the right level of report_safe to wrap the spam as an attac

Headers/Score Question

I haven't found any clues on this one, so I thought I would ask the list... I use spamassassin 3.0.2 with amavisd (latest version). Everything works properly and my spam headers look something like: X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=12.975 tagged_above=3 required=6.3 tests=BAYES_99, DCC_CHECK, URIBL_OB_SUR

Re: WrongMX plugin

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 11:58:23AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: Hi, > Disclaimer: I've never used the plugin, but I can casually read the code... Lucky you ;-) > wrongmx needs to run on your primary, and will detect that mail first went > through one of your secondaries before hitting the primar

Re: WrongMX plugin

At 10:41 AM 12/28/2004, Rainer Sokoll wrote: is someone here using $SUBJECT from http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WrongMXPlugin ? Here, it seems to do nothing :-( A mail sent to a secondary MX: -8< >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 28 15:18:28 2004 Received: from hcou105200.catv.ppp.infow

WrongMX plugin

Hi all, is someone here using $SUBJECT from http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WrongMXPlugin ? Here, it seems to do nothing :-( A mail sent to a secondary MX: -8< >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 28 15:18:28 2004 Received: from hcou105200.catv.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp (hcou105200.catv.ppp.inf

Re: SpamAssassin Tests problem

> Should I be applying that rule to body or to rawbody ? I guess "that depends". I suppose you could have an HTML body that would render with absolutely no text. An image or something maybe. If you care about that case rawbody would be the better choice. However, if you combine that with a mis

Re: SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 17:21 schrieb Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina: > On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 15:34 +0100, Thomas Arend wrote: > > score BAYES_99 0 0 4.070 4.070 # or as high as you suggest. > > uh! What man page should I read to understand that

RE: SpamAssassin Tests problem

Thanks for the input Loren! Should I be applying that rule to body or to rawbody ? George -Original Message- From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:53 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: SpamAssassin Tests problem > Can anyone poin

Re: SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

At 10:06 AM 12/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: I'll use locale.cf. Thanks for your tips :-) its local.cf, not locale. Technicaly speaking, you can name the file anything you want as long as it's a .cf file, SA will read it... But yes, the common standard mentioned in the docs is local, not locale.

Re: SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

At 03:41 PM 12/28/2004 +0100, you wrote: Hello, I see that in SA 3x, the scores have changed. I would like to increase/decrease the scores of come criterias. Espacielly the BAYES_99 test. My /etc/spamassassin/50_scores.cf file does not contain any indication about it, and I see it's scored 1.9 inst

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:34 schrieb jdow: > From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow: > > From: "Morris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >

Re: SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina wrote: On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 15:34 +0100, Thomas Arend wrote: score BAYES_99 0 0 4.070 4.070 # or as high as you suggest. uh! What man page should I read to understand that syntax ? What are the 4 numbers following BAYES_99 ? I thought It would just be followed by

Re: SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 15:34 +0100, Thomas Arend wrote: > score BAYES_99 0 0 4.070 4.070 # or as high as you suggest. uh! What man page should I read to understand that syntax ? What are the 4 numbers following BAYES_99 ? I thought It would just be followed by one number: the score. > To raise

Re: SpamAssassin Tests problem

> Can anyone point me in a way to stop this kind of messages ? Well, the easy way is to grab the SARE rules file that has rules to catch these babies. You may have to tweak the score up a little, depending on your threshold. I would guess your BODY-EMPTY test is failing because you are checking

Re: Difference between sa FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Linux local.cf

From: "Peter Guhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hello all > > In my FreeBSD-installation the directives in the file > /usr/local/share/spamassassin/user_prefs seem to be processed while > under Debian /usr/share/spamassassin/user_prefs got ignored (worked ^

SpamAssassin Tests problem

Hello guys, I have a bit of a problem matching some SPAM messages that make their way to my users mailboxes and then proceed to block Outlook from downloading any messages whatsoever. My system is FreeBSD 4.9 running SA 3.0 ( standard ). Below, I will post two examples of these SPAM messages: Ret

Re: SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:41 schrieb Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina: > Hello, > I see that in SA 3x, the scores have changed. > I would like to increase/decrease the scores of come criterias. > Espacielly the BAYES_99 test. > > My /etc/spamassa

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow: > From: "Morris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Kevin Curran wrote: > > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on > > > whether spamass

Re: SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

> I see that in SA 3x, the scores have changed. Yes. > I would like to increase/decrease the scores of come criterias. > Espacielly the BAYES_99 test. Ok. > My /etc/spamassassin/50_scores.cf file does not contain any indication DO NOT change the standard release files! Your changes will be ov

SA 3.0.1 - 1.9 BAYES_99

Hello, I see that in SA 3x, the scores have changed. I would like to increase/decrease the scores of come criterias. Espacielly the BAYES_99 test. My /etc/spamassassin/50_scores.cf file does not contain any indication about it, and I see it's scored 1.9 instead of the 1 told by the heading comment

Difference between sa FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Linux local.cf

Hello all In my FreeBSD-installation the directives in the file /usr/local/share/spamassassin/user_prefs seem to be processed while under Debian /usr/share/spamassassin/user_prefs got ignored (worked after renaming the file to "local.cf"). Now... I guess the latter is the way it's supposed to be w

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow: > From: "Morris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Kevin Curran wrote: > > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on > > > whether spamassassin or spamc is called. > > > > > > What

RE: Make test fails installing Storable (t/croak) for SA 3.0.2 upgrade

>> I wonder why CPAN is trying to use the wrong PERL. I know >> that PERL 5.005_03 ships with FreeBSD 4.9, but I've >> installed the newer perl and used the command to switch PERL >> to use the PORT install instead of the SYSTEM install. >From reading from the FreeBSD lists, it appears using C

RE: Make test fails installing Storable (t/croak) for SA 3.0.2 upgrade

>> Looking at the Storable code, that bug only occurs if you >> try to build Storable on Perl 5.005_03. If I do a perl -v I find that I'm using: This is perl, v5.8.2 built for i386-freebsd I wonder why CPAN is trying to use the wrong PERL. I know that PERL 5.005_03 ships with FreeBSD 4.9, but I

Re: Line continuation in rules?

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:14:58 -0500, Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Tim Boyer wrote: >> Is there a way to do line continuation in the rules? I've got a bunch >> of subjects that I want to filter out, and the result is a >> 600-character wide l

Re: Make test fails installing Storable (t/croak) for SA 3.0.2 upgrade

At 02:39 PM 12/27/2004, John Schneider wrote: I'm having trouble install Storable on FreeBSD 4.9 so I can upgrade my SA to 3.0.2. Does anyone have any ideas how to solve the following error during Make? Looking at the Storable code, that bug only occurs if you try to build Storable on Perl 5.005_0

Re: Line continuation in rules?

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Tim Boyer wrote: > Is there a way to do line continuation in the rules? I've got a bunch > of subjects that I want to filter out, and the result is a > 600-character wide line. It works, but it's not the most legible > thing around. Nope, rules are 1 lin

Line continuation in rules?

Is there a way to do line continuation in the rules? I've got a bunch of subjects that I want to filter out, and the result is a 600-character wide line. It works, but it's not the most legible thing around. Thanks much, -- Tim Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]