Sat Aug 20 00:28:36 2005 [16014] info: spamd: processing message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for filter:88
Sat Aug 20 00:28:42 2005 [16014] error: __alarm__
Sat Aug 20 00:28:42 2005 [16014] error: __alarm__
Sat Aug 20 00:28:49 2005 [16014] info: spamd: identified spam
(35.1/5.0) for filter:88 in 13.7
On 8/19/05, Thomas Manson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And the mail keeps bouncing for ever in the active queue of postfix (i can
> see it changing of queue)
...
> Aug 19 23:31:35 dell1 sendmail[23733]: j7JLVYcj023733:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], ctladdr=root (0/0), delay=00:00:01,
> xdelay=00:00:01, ma
Hey all,
I'm doing everything (bayes, AWL, userprefs) in SQL. Is there some way to
protect the values I've got in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf such as my
mysql username and password from casual snoopage?
Only think I could think of was to make SA setGID, and have the file chmod
750.
An
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Knuth writes:
> Hallo und Guten Tag Justin,
>
> Gestern (am 18.08.2005 - 22:39 Uhr)
>schriebst Du:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> > hmm -- sounds like a bug.
>
> > If you can capture an "strace" trace of a spa
On Friday 19 August 2005 09:54 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Setting up clamav is quick and easy, and best of all, free.
>
> If you've got SA 3.x, there's even a clamAV plugin so you can get SA to
> call clamav while it's scanning for spam.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin
>
> I
> > > Telnet uses the built-in resolver -- most ordinary
> > applications work
> > > this way.
> >
> > Hrm. Any tips on how to make it aware of my new "spam." subdomain?
>
> If a application uses a resolver (it's own or the built
> in resovler) that points solely to a DNS server (set)
> WITH
SURBL, tweaked scores for image only, and some custom recipient rules
have kept it to virtually zero here.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno S. Delbono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Anton Krall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: 2005 August, 19, Friday 11:37
Subject: Re: Sudden Increase in
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like
amavis
and SA are not caching a lot anymore...
Haven't seen it here, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Different people
seem to get different kinds of spam.
Actually in the last tw
In an older episode (Saturday, 20. August 2005 00:09), wolfgang wrote:
> in my view you should UNinstall sendmail, then reinstall postfix - or maybe
> even better UNinstall sendmail, then UNinstall postfix.
oops, forgot the last step:
then install postfix again ;)
>
> hope this helps,
>
> wo
your log show entries from both postfix and sendmail - that looks bad to me -
from my experience, they can *not* co-exist on a machine.
in my view you should UNinstall sendmail, then reinstall postfix - or maybe
even better UNinstall sendmail, then UNinstall postfix.
hope this helps,
wolfgang
Hi,
I've a strang issue:
I send a mail from root to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
The user actually recieve the mail, but as an undelivered mail return to sender .
And the mail keeps bouncing for ever in the active queue of postfix (i can see it changing of queue)
(note: this server is not in production, s
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Okay, I just looked over the sites for both those products, as well as the
> wiki. How has the license changed? As a service provider, what do I need
> to do to comply with that license?
You ought to ask the providers
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>> From the 3.1 features list:
>
>
> - Razor: disable Razor2 support by default per our policy, since the
> service is not free for non-personal use. It's trivial to reenable.
>
> - DCC: disable DCC for similar reasons, due to new license terms.
>
> Okay, I j
From the 3.1 features list:
- Razor: disable Razor2 support by default per our policy, since the
service is not free for non-personal use. It's trivial to reenable.
- DCC: disable DCC for similar reasons, due to new license terms.
Okay, I just looked over the sites for both those products,
Do you use Bayes? Are you using sa-learn to teach the message as spam?
--
Matthew Yette
Senior Engineer - NOC/Operations
MA Polce Consulting, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
315-838-1644 (w)
315-356-0597 (f)
AIM/Yahoo: MAPolceNOC
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Anton Krall [mailto
That sounds about right. I did get those thresholds from somewhere on
this list, though, I believe. No biggie. Bayes has been pretty spot on
so far (I can post the rules chart if anyone is interested.), so I'm
pretty confident in allowing it to continue to learn.
Thanks for your help.
--
Matthe
Anton Krall wrote:
Im getting very low scores.. Smapm emails are passing thru, containing just
1 big jpg inside or text with one html link... These spam could easily be
confused with normal email...
Which files would I need to post here?
- The mail with full content headers + sa score
- SA v
Im getting very low scores.. Smapm emails are passing thru, containing just
1 big jpg inside or text with one html link... These spam could easily be
confused with normal email...
Which files would I need to post here?
|-Original Message-
|From: Matthias Fuhrmann
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
I'm going to guess that whitelist isn't taken into consideration.
-12 for autolearning of ham is pretty extreme, I'm not surprised you
aren't seeing any autolearning. The default is .1
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Matthew Yette wrote:
Running the sa-stats.pl version 0.9 that produces a char
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Yette wrote:
| Running the sa-stats.pl version 0.9 that produces a chart with stats on
| what rules are hit for spam and ham most frequently, I notice that of
| all 13,411 autolearns performed, every one of them was for spam. Ham has
| 0 messa
spamd is running on an old 400Mhz iMac, using MySQL for its bayes
database, which look like this...
sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 1851 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 28155 0
Running the sa-stats.pl version 0.9 that produces a chart with stats on
what rules are hit for spam and ham most frequently, I notice that of
all 13,411 autolearns performed, every one of them was for spam. Ham has
0 messages autolearned. Wouldn't, for example, a message that comes in
and has been
Bryan Hepworth wrote:
The original update was from an rpm that was pre-built because there
wasn't an official redhat rpm around at the time and there was a torrent
of guff coming through, so it's more than just the perl rpm it was a
whole 9 yards install from the latest one I could find at the
Loren Wilton wrote:
>>The main reason is adding rules to catch or not catch viruses would wind
>
> up
>
>>diluting the scores of the spam rules. This would weaken SA's spam
>>detecting abilities, in order to grant it rather lame virus catching
>
> abilities.
>
> Hum. Interesting philosophy, bu
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Anton Krall wrote:
> Guys.
>
> Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like amavis
> and SA are not caching a lot anymore...
>
> Any ideas?
does it mean, there are no tags set in the header of emails, or just low
scorings?
no tags means, there were time
Bryan Hepworth wrote:
I've built the latest version as suggested on the main site which all
went very well, however when I come to do the upgrade I get this error:-
file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_porn.cf from install of
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.4-1 conflicts with file from package
spamassa
> The main reason is adding rules to catch or not catch viruses would wind
up
> diluting the scores of the spam rules. This would weaken SA's spam
> detecting abilities, in order to grant it rather lame virus catching
abilities.
Hum. Interesting philosophy, but I don't know that it is actually tr
> Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like amavis
> and SA are not caching a lot anymore...
Haven't seen it here, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Different people
seem to get different kinds of spam.
Loren
At 07:16 AM 8/19/2005, Chris wrote:
On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:46 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
> >Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the other two
> > as spam, this one slipped through just a bit under the wire.
>
> Spamassassin doesn't
Guys.
Is it just me or has spam increased for the past few days? Its like amavis
and SA are not caching a lot anymore...
Any ideas?
> > > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4518
> I expect the scenario goes like that:
> - SA spawns a pyzor process, which does not finish in 5 seconds;
> - due to #4518 the pipe is not auto-closed by SA until a next
> mail-to-be-checked by this process comes around, which may
>
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:47:44AM +0100, Bryan Hepworth wrote:
> file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_porn.cf from install of
> perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.4-1 conflicts with file from package
> spamassassin-3.0.1-0_19.rh9.at
This usually happens if you're not trying to upgrade/install both
perl-Mail
I got spam like that (posted that here some time ago), all with the
specific port= helo= characteristic in the header.
Since there was no FP during testing I now discard them all in Postfix with:
/^Received: from \[[0-9\.]*\] \(port\=[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]
helo\=\[[a-zA-Z]*\]\)/ DISCARD
Regards
Menn
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:46 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
> > >Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the
> > >other two as spam, this one slipped through just a b
On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:46 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
> >Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the other two
> > as spam, this one slipped through just a bit under the wire.
>
> Spamassassin doesn't try to detect viruses. That's what vir
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the other
two as
spam, this one slipped through just a bit under the wire.
Spamassassin doesn't try to detect viruses. That's what virus scanners
are best at.
I've been s
Hi Everyone
I've built the latest version as suggested on the main site which all
went very well, however when I come to do the upgrade I get this error:-
file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_porn.cf from install of
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.4-1 conflicts with file from package
spamassassin-3.0.
> > > > Since I use SpamAssassin 3.001000, I have sometimes zombies. And
> > > > I`ve found out it. The zombie was pyzor.
> > My first guess it that it is a symptom of:
> > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4518
> Yep, that's a possibility...
I expect the scenario goes like that
38 matches
Mail list logo
