Rose, Bobby wrote:
I have a user that is of Japanese origin and who converses with other
individuals in Japan in his same field of study. The messages they send
are in Japanese and trip the URI_SBL rule. These people are in
different .jp domains and I really don't want to get into the
At 10:00 AM 3/15/2005, Mike Spamassassin wrote:
I have just received spam from Esmeralda Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a test which identifies that the description (Esmeralada
Bouchard) bears no resemblance to the given sender's address?
No.. It's quite common for normal people to have
...
Point taken, but I still think it would be a valid test.
Like all SpamAssassin tests it should only be one of many indicators.
In particular all the ones that I receive I would expect to have Mike or
Michael in the description of my email address.
I would also like to be able to pick out those
From: Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Is this Received header correctly formatted?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:36:36 -0800
...
Received: from ar39.lsanca2-4.16.241.28.lsanca2.elnk.dsl.genuity.net
([4.16.241.28] helo=watson1)
by pop-a065d23.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id
...
From: Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is there such a test?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:39:32 -0800
...
I have just received spam from Esmeralda Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a test which identifies that the
List Mail User wrote:
Unfortunately even the quotes, while typical, are optional; I have
lots of examples of both ham and spam without the quotes. The rule is that
everything from the ':' up to the '' is the description (and nearly anything
is legal). To show examples, here is an example from
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 9:02:44 AM, Stuart Johnston wrote:
SURBLs have them... most of the time... eventually... Er, yeah.
Just to check, are you using ob.surbl.org and jp.surbl.org
in multi.surbl.org, i.e.:
urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org.A 64
body URIBL_JP_SURBL
I've been going through a bunch of spam and blacklisting domains. However,
some of the more frequent offenders are in the body of the message. For
example, today I found about half a dozen porno spams that contained a
reference to
http://www.a123s.biz/...
I can do a body match rule.
Is there
I got the ldapBlick plug-in pretty much finished, and it just needs some
polishing I think.
I'd like to get some help testing this for load and latency, so if
anybody has a local LDAP server running already and is pretty
comfortable with SA and LDAP, and is willing to poke at this, let me
Am 16.03.2005 um 00:31 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:27:28AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are there problems with mail header identification?
Am I in the wrong list with this question?
Mar 13 01:16:18 ns spamd[28893]: processing message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for
I'd take that bet.
While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
out there in [EMAIL PROTECTED] land, and hotmail world, most people have a
single
email address strongly related to their name.
Back to the
Loren Wilton wrote:
Received: from ar39.lsanca2-4.16.241.28.lsanca2.elnk.dsl.genuity.net
([4.16.241.28] helo=watson1)
by pop-a065d23.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 1DBKRe-Kp-00; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:23:22 -0800
1) Is stmp in lower case valid, or should it have been STMP?
2)
List Mail User wrote:
the with is sometimes also either a by or via (and probably
other string values which I haven't noticed). BTW.
by via and with are separate sub-fields with their own meaning
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols
Dear collegues,
I'm having still extrem problems with memory and cpu consumation of SA
3.0.2 spamd;
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ Command
19098 exim 30 5 399m 398m 34m R 99.7 65.8 1:37.47 spamd
19121 exim 20 5 111m 111m 34m S 0.7 4.4 0:20.78
Hi
when running spamd with 'spamd -D -q' the SQL statement 'SELECT
preference,value FROM sa_prefs WHERE username=_USERNAME_ OR
username='$GLOBAL' OR username=CONCAT('%',_USERNAME_) ORDER BY
username ASC' and testing from shell with 'echo -e From:
user\nTo:user\Subject: Test\n\n | spamc -u
I figured out the problem, it' was the an individuals email address in
the message body (even though not a mailto). Their email domain isn't
listed at spamhaus.org but it turns out one of their ISPs DNS servers
are which they are using as secondary. This makes the second time I've
come across
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 05:09, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 March 2005 02:47 pm, jdow wrote:
The canonical way to do it is something like:
rewrite_header Subject *SPAM* _SCORE(00)_ **
That gives headers that look like:
Subject: *SPAM* 027.3 ** spoo is best for
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 3:55:52 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
I figured out the problem, it' was the an individuals email address in
the message body (even though not a mailto). Their email domain isn't
listed at spamhaus.org but it turns out one of their ISPs DNS servers
are which they are
Some users have had problems with corrupt AWL database after upgrade of
Spamassassin. Try disabling AWL to see if that is your issue.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Greg,
Some users have had problems with corrupt AWL database after upgrade of
Spamassassin. Try disabling AWL to see if that is your issue.
I'm totally new to the list and I don't know 3.0.2 so I'm not sure how
helpful this is going
Greg,
i have
use_auto_whitelist 0
in the local.cf
But thanks anyway
Wolfgang
Greg Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 16.03.2005 13:54:24:
Some users have had problems with corrupt AWL database after upgrade of
Spamassassin. Try disabling AWL to see if that is your issue.
-Original
Am 16.03.2005 um 08:55 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
Am 16.03.2005 um 00:31 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:27:28AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are there problems with mail header identification?
Am I in the wrong list with this question?
Mar 13 01:16:18 ns
This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it down. No real mailto URI
unless there is some translation going on with email addresses embedded in the
body by the email client on send. At first, I just thought it might be a bug
since the messages were using ISO-2022-JP
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 5:47:40 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it down. No
real mailto URI unless there is some translation going on with
email addresses embedded in the body by the email client on send. At
first, I just thought it might be a
Mike Spamassassin wrote:
I'd take that bet.
While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
out there in [EMAIL PROTECTED] land, and hotmail world, most people have a
single
email address strongly related to
Alright, I'm developing such a test.
For American/Anglo-Sexon names, it will do random comparason with the
Webster Dictionary for FLast, FirshL, First.Last Last.F, Last.First
and spell check them all.
For Indian names, it will search the Yahoo movie Database.
For French Names, we will append
I had that happen once before, but it was an earlier version of the
Bayes DB, and it was because my database was hosed.
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/15/2005 6:01 PM
Hello,
I'm using spamassassin 3.0.2 from within MailScanner 4.39.6 on Debian
woody. After upgrading to spamassassin
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 9:02:44 AM, Stuart Johnston wrote:
SURBLs have them... most of the time... eventually... Er, yeah.
Just to check, are you using ob.surbl.org and jp.surbl.org
in multi.surbl.org, i.e.:
In the last ~24 hours:
All SA 5: 32540
*_SURBL:22361
Mike Spamassassin wrote:
I'd take that bet.
While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
out there in [EMAIL PROTECTED] land, and hotmail world, most people have a single
email address strongly related to their
...
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:38:13 - (GMT)
Subject: Re: Is there such a test?
From: Mike Spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd take that bet.
While you are almost certainly correct with the likes of those who
subscribe to this group, who often have multiple email addresses,
out there in [EMAIL
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:11:27PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
spamassassin -D -p conf_file --lint doesn't show any problems that I
can see.
if I run:
sa-learn --showdots --mbox --ham -p
/opt/MailScanner/etc/spam.assassin.prefs.conf ham_box
sa-learn just hangs.
To: Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: SpamAssassin Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is this Received header correctly formatted?
Loren Wilton wrote:
Received: from ar39.lsanca2-4.16.241.28.lsanca2.elnk.dsl.genuity.net
([4.16.241.28] helo=watson1)
by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would suggest running with -D and monitoring spamd memory size
as it starts up. Something is causing it to balloon to massive
sizes after startup.
Presumably you are limiting the size of the messages sent in for scanning,
as recommended in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bobby, could you open a bug in the bugzilla about this? URI rules
should not be checking mailto links.
- --j.
Jeff Chan writes:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 5:47:40 AM, Bobby Rose wrote:
This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am 16.03.2005 um 08:55 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
Am 16.03.2005 um 00:31 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:27:28AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are there problems with mail header
List Mail User wrote:
P.S. Could whomever maintains this list please try to settle on one format
for the list's name - today's messages are using
SpamAssassin Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a couple of days ago the format changed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] apache. org users@spamassassin.apache.org
and
This is an excerpt that I used in trying to track it down. No real mailto URI
unless there is some translation going on with email addresses embedded in the
body by the email client on send. At first, I just thought it might be a bug
since the messages were using ISO-2022-JP character set
Justin!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) wrote on 16.03.05 21:46:-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-Hash: SHA1I would suggest running with -D and monitoring spamd memory sizeas it starts up. Something is causing it to balloon to massivesizes after startup.
nothing special during startup; it takes
At 20:48 -0800 03/15/2005, Jeff Chan wrote:
Yes, please see URIDNSBL and SURBL:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm
http://www.surbl.org/
which are built into SpamAssassin 3 and enabled by default if
network tests are enabled.
Okaaay. Help
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...and if you can, avoid using running messages to the list through SA
(easy to do if you're using procmail, not so easy in other cases).
or run them through with whitelist_from_rcvd *.* apache.org to pad the
value so that it doesn't matter
I do wish that postfix would
I'm getting errors building the rpm on x86_64:
Manifying blib/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::Bayes.3pm
Manifying blib/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::RelayCountry.3pm
+ /usr/bin/make spamc/libspamc.so
/usr/bin/make -f spamc/Makefile spamc/libspamc.so
make[1]: Entering directory
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:33:21PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
I'm getting errors building the rpm on x86_64:
Yeah, we haven't quite worked that out yet. Things are being linked against
things they shouldn't be. :(
For the time being, you can apply the patch attached to bug 4090:
Hi,
On my SA Gateway, I have no local box except root. Should I forward
HAM/SPAM to local box? Mail are not meant for local delivery here.
Regards,
Norman Zhang
Vicki Brown wrote on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:00:59 -0800:
Okaaay. Help me out here, please? If network tests are enabled?
I change essentially nothing from the defaults.
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL is loaded in init.pre.
Net::DNS is up to date.
But as I'm apparently not using
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:25:53PM -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:11:27PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
spamassassin -D -p conf_file --lint doesn't show any problems that I
can see.
if I run:
sa-learn --showdots --mbox --ham -p
Is there a test that one can construct that would
assign a weight to a message that is missing
a certain header, completely? In my case, no Subject
line at all.
--
Quist ConsultingEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea DriveVoice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1
Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
Is there a test that one can construct that would
assign a weight to a message that is missing
a certain header, completely? In my case, no Subject
line at all.
From the default ruleset for 3.x:
header __HAS_SUBJECT exists:Subject
meta MISSING_SUBJECT
47 matches
Mail list logo
