i have been trying to catch those for a while, partly successfully.
thanks for the chickenpox hint, that looks like a good add-on.
while fiddling with my rules, i noticed something strange:
rawbody SOMERULE /\bmai\|\b/
will not work
rawbody SOMERULE /\bmai\|/
will. same with rules that start with
In an older episode (Friday 15 April 2005 02:02), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
\b means word-ish character on one side, non-wordish character on the
other
good explanation to help me understand my misconception, thanks.
| is not a word-ish character
i was aware of that, but tried to consider |
On Thursday 14 April 2005 21:08, wolfgang wrote:
i attach a set of rules i have been using and improving for a while
that handle stock spam, especially the || stuff.
Stupid Q: As I don't have a 'stock.cf' file in the config dir now,
how do I add this to the ammo box? I have moved it into that
On Thursday 14 April 2005 20:30, wolfgang wrote:
In an older episode (Friday 15 April 2005 02:02),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
\b means word-ish character on one side, non-wordish character on
the
other
good explanation to help me understand my misconception, thanks.
| is not a word-ish
How could i forgot checking the bugziila??? Well thank you and sorry for the
wasted time.
Angelo
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: SpamAssassin and Horde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
Hello SRH-Lists,
Wednesday, April 13, 2005, 1:49:33 PM, you wrote:
SL I get millions (mil|ions?) of spams from this guy (well, not millions,
SL but I have recieved 15 in the last 2 hours).
SL While generic tests for character/letter obfuscation are difficult, this
SL guy is pretty predictable.
Jeff Chan wrote:
The spam advertises a presumptive porn site on geocities.
Yep - I've been seeing a lot of those too (and forwarding them to abuse@
geocities.com). Luckily the spammers have been consistent (at least so
far) in how they name the sites, so the rule below does the trick...
uri
-Original Message-
From: Tim Wesemann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 April 2005 20:18
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: 0 Hits on blatant spam
http://www.timuel.com/badmessage.txt
We have quite a strict filtering setup for porn related messages. Under
our
Jean Caron wrote:
Kevin, your assumption is correct, user accounts are on the server and
spamc is used. I already have the central DB setup using bayes_path in
local.cf.
I think what you are saying confirms what I suspected, but it's still
not 100% clear. Even though I have a central DB, all
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 09:57 am, Eugene Kurmanin wrote:
5. Copy SPAM to the defined mailbox;
6. Reject SPAM at the DATA stage,
if SPAM score is greater than defined value;
7. Log all activities to syslog.
Well if you are going to reject, why also accept
and copy to mailbox.
You can
John Andersen wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 09:57 am, Eugene Kurmanin wrote:
5. Copy SPAM to the defined mailbox;
6. Reject SPAM at the DATA stage,
if SPAM score is greater than defined value;
7. Log all activities to syslog.
Well if you are going to reject, why also accept
and
Kevin, my comments/questions are inline.
Kevin Peuhkurinen writes:
Jean Caron wrote:
Kevin, your assumption is correct, user accounts are on the server and
spamc is used. I already have the central DB setup using bayes_path in
local.cf.
I think what you are saying confirms what I
On Friday 15 April 2005 08:03 am, Jean Caron wrote:
Again, how can I tell for sure ?
Look in the header and see what the bayes score was on the FN.
--
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man, hated
and scorned. When the cause succeeds, however, the timid join
Really ? I never saw bayes score in the header. Sould ALL msgs have a bayes
score in the header ? Here's a sample header;
Received: from 80.231.10.208 by mail (envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED], uid 1001) with qmail-scanner-1.25 (spamassassin:
3.0.2. Clear:RC:0(80.231.10.208):SA:0(1.5/2.0):.
Recently I have been getting phone calls that friends have been getting
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy
but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter.
Anyone else getting this?
--
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a
Jean Caron wrote:
Really ? I never saw bayes score in the header. Sould ALL msgs have a
bayes score in the header ? Here's a sample header;
Received: from 80.231.10.208 by mail (envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED], uid 1001) with qmail-scanner-1.25
(spamassassin: 3.0.2.
At 09:50 PM 4/14/2005, Patrick Graham wrote:
I am trying tryng to understand why I am getting different scoresets based
on how the message is routed into spamassassin. My suspicions are that it
is an issue with how spamc/spamd/spamassassin is called, or a
chickenpox.cf issue, but i'm not really
At 10:24 AM 4/15/2005, Steven W. Orr wrote:
Recently I have been getting phone calls that friends have been getting
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy
but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter.
Anyone else getting this?
Nope..
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy
but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter.
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming
some poor sod
Hello All
i'm using SA 3.00 with postfix 2.1
I need to configure multiple spamd process
with different configuration files (local.cf's)
Has somone knowledge about this?
Thanks for help
Regards
Bruno
Neil Watson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like
crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by
spamass-milter.
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up
We're using spamass-milter with -r 10. Does this reject the message
(causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just discard it? If it's a
reject, how can I change it to a discard?
I'm asking because I'm seeing stuff in our outgoing mail queue that
looks like reject messages.
--
Steve
Neil Watson wrote:
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming
some poor sod who has been joe-jobbed. Discard spam. Don't add the to
problem.
The problem with discarding is that in situations like the one
described the sender will have no idea the mail was not
There are two forms
of spam that we are getting a lot of and I wanted to know if anyone has already
developed a rule set to combat them. One says it is an OEM software vendor
and it lists of a ton of products and there prices. The other is in
offering low rates on mortgages. Maybe it was a
Guessing at what it is your trying to do, I would
suggest you take a look at MailScanner
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2005
15:43To: SASubject: Mutliple instance of
spamd
Hello All i'm using SA 3.00 with postfix 2.1 I need to configure
I recently added the conservative (mass-check testing hit ONLY spam) version
of all the SARE rules that had been updated in 2005. I figured that was as
good a place as any to start. So far so good. Thanks to the Ninjas.
Below are some related stats from my current maillog. I don't make any
claims
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Neil Watson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like
crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by
spamass-milter.
Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most
At 07:56 AM Friday, 4/15/2005, you wrote -=
We're using spamass-milter with -r 10. Does this reject the message
(causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just discard it? If it's a reject,
how can I change it to a discard?
I'm asking because I'm seeing stuff in our outgoing mail queue that looks
Hello,
I'm running a site wide bayesian install, and it improve a lot the spam
detection.
I was wondering if as sitewide AWL would do the same. So i look forward
to your comments :)
There is a way to export the users awl dbs to create a single global db?
or starting from zero it's a better
Hello Matt,
Friday, April 15, 2005, 10:29:14 AM, you wrote:
MK Also, did you restart spamd after installing chickenpox.cf? If you use
MK spamd/spamc, then spamd only loads the base config files once and only
MK reads user_prefs on a per-message basis when spamc feeds them.
Serious lack of
M-Original Message-
MFrom: Steven Stern
MSent: 15 April 2005 15:56
MTo: spamass-milt-list@nongnu.org; spamass
MSubject: Does -r reject or discard
M
MWe're using spamass-milter with -r 10. Does this reject
Mthe message (causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just
Mdiscard it? If it's a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All
i'm using SA 3.00 with postfix 2.1
I need to configure multiple spamd process
with different configuration files (local.cf's)
Has somone knowledge about this?
man spamd
Look at the --siteconfigpath and -p command-line parameters.
They can share the
Alright. I find it strange that the defaults don't apply to my setup, but in
any case I added the following to local.cf and re-started spamd.
add_header all Status _YESNO_, score=_SCORE_ required=_REQD_ tests=_TESTS_
Here's the bayes related I had in there already;
use_bayes 1
bayes_path
Todd Lyons wrote:
Steven Stern wanted us to know:
We're using spamass-milter with -r 10. Does this reject the message
(causing Sendmail to send a reject) or just discard it? If it's a
reject, how can I change it to a discard?
It rejects it at the SMTP level before sendmail ever accepts it, so
Total SMTP Connections
6008
Total Rejected By RBL
4803
Total Flagged By SA
431
Total Delivered
774
Percentage Delivered
12
Wow! 12%! Damn!
Thank goodness for those SARE and SURBL guys! ;)
--Chris (Still working on a new SARE ruleset...8 months and counting)
Jean Caron wrote:
Here's the bayes related I had in there already;
use_bayes 1
bayes_path /home/bayesUID/bayes
bayes_file_mode 0666
bayes_auto_learn 1
Jean
Suggestion: set bayes_file_mode to 0777 not 0666.
The bayes_file_mode is really a mask not literal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
Total SMTP Connections
6008
Total Rejected By RBL
4803
Total Flagged By SA
431
Total Delivered
774
Percentage Delivered
12
Wow! 12%! Damn!
Thank goodness for those SARE and SURBL guys! ;)
yeah, but 12% of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:41 PM
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: 'ROY,RHETT G'; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Results of adding SARE rules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre
Chris Santerre writes:
Total SMTP Connections
6008
Total Rejected By RBL
4803
Total Flagged By SA
431
Total Delivered
774
Percentage Delivered
12
Wow! 12%! Damn!
Thank goodness for those SARE and SURBL guys! ;)
yeah, but 12% of *what*? (hint: no idea of fps in
Sure...rain on the parade! Actually the data doesn't say if
the marked as spams were delivered either.
Remind me to poke you in the eye when I see you! ;)
--Chris
No, the stuff marked as spam doesn't get delivered, at least not to the
users. That percentage was what doesn't get
40 matches
Mail list logo
