[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings, battlers.
I would like to rewrite headers on incoming spam without having SA
prepend "X-Spam-" to them. Two reasons:
First, I want to get rid of "Disposition-Notification-To" because many
of my users configure their Outlook to automatically honour delivery
n
Really simple question -
Where's the documentation to find out how to link other rule files into
my local.cf file?
Dan
Daniel Watts wrote:
Really simple question -
Where's the documentation to find out how to link other rule files
into my local.cf file?
Dan
Answered this myself:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
just use "include FILENAME"
At 05:54 AM 10/31/2005, Daniel Watts wrote:
Really simple question -
Where's the documentation to find out how to link other rule files into my
local.cf file?
You can't.. but you don't need to. Spamassassin will
parse /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf, not just local.cf
So, all you need to do is
Daniel Watts wrote:
Really simple question -
Where's the documentation to find out how to link other rule files
into my local.cf file?
Dan
Hmm spoke too soon:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint
Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: include
"/et
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 05:54 AM 10/31/2005, Daniel Watts wrote:
Really simple question -
Where's the documentation to find out how to link other rule files
into my local.cf file?
You can't..
Really? It's in the documentation (but admittedly doesn't work...)
but you don't need to. Spa
At 06:17 AM 10/31/2005, Daniel Watts wrote:
Daniel Watts wrote:
Really simple question -
Where's the documentation to find out how to link other rule files into
my local.cf file?
Dan
Hmm spoke too soon:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint
Failed to parse line in SpamAssa
*MANY* things in the 3.x documentation aren't supported in 2.55. The
include directive is new as of 3.0.0. Since I run 2.64, I was unaware
it had been added. However, the option is only really useful for
user_prefs files. Adding it to local.cf is pointless unless you have
your .cf files in a
Daniel Watts wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> Many thanks for this heads up! Any reason you are avoiding going to the
> 3.x branch?
Well, generally I hold off on new major releases for at least a month unless
there's a security reason to upgrade ASAP.
However, in this case I've just been too busy to upgra
Hi,
nobody any idea. It's very silly that the report is on english even when I
have the german 30_text_de.cf in my /usr/share/spamassassin directory.
Regards
Christoph
Christoph Petersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> even when I change the LANG setting to de_DE.ISO-8859-1 I get an english
> report. What else could I do?
>
How did you do this? Are you sure this change applies to the spamassassin
instance that generated the English report?
(ie: merely setting this from a us
Hi Matt,
Christoph Petersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> even when I change the LANG setting to de_DE.ISO-8859-1 I get an english
> report. What else could I do?
>
> How did you do this? Are you sure this change applies to the spamassassin
> instance that generated the English report?
I've changed my sett
In the 3.1.0 upgrade page on the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UpgradeTo310
One will find this text:
-
The SA headers X-Spam-Flag, X-Spam-Checker-Version, X-Spam-Level, and
X-Spam-Status are only added to messages that have been flagged as spam. I have
Hi folks,
so after I've setup the config files from the source archive and setting
LC_MESSAGES to de_DE.ISO8859-1 it works. Thanks for help.
Regards
Christoph
>
> I've changed my settings with dpkg-reconfigure locales. Which
> changes on
> debian the locales systemwide. After that I've restart
Hi,
I upgraded to 3.1.0 (from 3.0.4) and enabled the Domainkeys plugin.
I patched it with the patch in the bugzilla #4623
(http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3210) as I am
using Mail::DomainKeys 0.80.
Testing against mail from groups.yahoo.com, I get DK_SIGNED, but not
DK_VER
ok - here's what I'm thinking. I want to be able to switch MySWL servers
should the main server go down.
In my local.cf file I have this:
user_awl_dsn DBI:mysql:spamassassin:bayes
The server "bayes" is defined in my /etc/hosts file. What I'm thinking
is if that server goes down that I gave a
Hello all:
I finally upgraded from 2.64 to 3.01 using CPAN. I ready the UPGRADE file,
of course. I made the tweaks of the necessary items using CPAN and my local
conf file.
I ran sa-learn --sync and after removing some old .cf files (like spamcop) I
got it to run clean. However, I still have t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I finally upgraded from 2.64 to 3.01 using CPAN.
...
> I ran sa-learn --sync
...
> However, I still have the " bayes db version 2 is not able to be used,
> aborting" in my logs. Ive been
I believe for an upgrade from 2.* to 3.* a simple sa-learn --sync is not enough.
Did that, didn't help though. I only have the one version of sa-learn.
on 10/31/05 1:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I finally upgraded from 2.64 to 3.01 using CPAN.
> ...
>> I ran sa-learn --sync
> ...
>> However, I still have the " bayes db
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Did that, didn't help though. I only have the one version of
> sa-learn.
You can download the 2.64 version of sa-learn here:
http://search.cpan.org/~jmason/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64/
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business I
Hi list,
I want to know if there is some sort of integrity checks for a situation
where a URL would be different from the "CAPTION" url, example:
http://hacker.com";>http://legit-bank.com
On top of my mind, I never saw a situation like this in real life,
except in phish emails.
I have also chec
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 11:14 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> In the 3.1.0 upgrade page on the wiki:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UpgradeTo310
[...]
> Is it true that 3.1.0 is broken as the wiki indicates, or has someone been
> posting mis-information to the wiki?
misinformation.
I checked th
> http://hacker.com";>http://legit-bank.com
>
> On top of my mind, I never saw a situation like this in real life,
> except in phish emails.
I see this all the time in promotional emails (spam, not phish) to track
clickthrough.
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x90
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Greetings, battlers.
I would like to rewrite headers on incoming spam without having SA
prepend "X-Spam-" to them. Two reasons:
First, I want to get rid of "Disposition-Notification-To" because many
of my users configure their Outlook to automatically honour delive
I might add that im not totally opposed to dumping bayes info and starting
fresh...would that be an easier solution?
on 10/31/05 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Did that, didn't help though. I only have the one version of
>> sa-learn.
>
>
Am Montag, 31. Oktober 2005 19:33 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > http://hacker.com";>http://legit-bank.com
> >
> > On top of my mind, I never saw a situation like this in real
> > life, except in phish emails.
>
> I see this all the time in promotional emails (spam, not phish) to
> track clickthrou
You are thinking to hard on this problem.
You create a MySQL cluster and point local.cf to that. Restart SA and
it works. If you pull the plug on the first clustered node the other
one will automatically take over. That's the purpose of the cluster...
automating the failover.
host files, cro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raul Dias writes:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 11:14 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > In the 3.1.0 upgrade page on the wiki:
> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UpgradeTo310
> [...]
> > Is it true that 3.1.0 is broken as the wiki indicates, or has someon
upgraded 3.0.4 to 3.1.0, spamassassin --lint produces:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint
[1257] warn: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, "/home/bayes/"
is not valid for "bayes_path", skipping: bayes_path _/home/bayes/
[1257] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping:
Mark Merchant wrote:
upgraded 3.0.4 to 3.1.0, spamassassin --lint produces:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint
[1257] warn: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, "/home/bayes/"
is not valid for "bayes_path", skipping: bayes_path _/home/bayes/
[1257] warn: config: failed to
Mark Merchant wrote:
> upgraded 3.0.4 to 3.1.0, spamassassin --lint produces:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint
> [1257] warn: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, "/home/bayes/"
> is not valid for "bayes_path", skipping: bayes_path _/home/bayes/
SA is correct, your b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://hacker.com";>http://legit-bank.com
On top of my mind, I never saw a situation like this in real life,
except in phish emails.
I see this all the time in promotional emails (spam, not phish) to track
> clickthrough.
I see it on legit mail too, including a coupl
Mathias Homann a écrit :
and increasing the score on spams hurts WHY?
to be precise, the rule should only trigger if the text between the href=> and parts of the url has a hostname at all, so that an
url like http://www.spamassassin.org";>click here to ged rid
of it doesnt trigger it.
do
Running SA 3.01 on Fedora Core 2 with Qmail. The problem is recently Im
showing emails getting delivered to mailbox with the ***SPAM*** in the
title, yet the rules state if the email is spam it shouldn't be delivered to
the persons mailbox. The headers even show the score is over the spam count:
6.
> > > http://hacker.com";>http://legit-bank.com
> > >
> > > On top of my mind, I never saw a situation like this in real
> > > life, except in phish emails.
> >
> to be precise, the rule should only trigger if the text between the href=> and parts of the url has a hostname at all, so that an
> ur
"Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 10/31/2005 02:20:43 PM:
> Running SA 3.01 on Fedora Core 2 with Qmail. The problem is recently
Im
> showing emails getting delivered to mailbox with the ***SPAM*** in
the
> title, yet the rules state if the email is spam it shouldn't be delivered
to
> Running SA 3.01 on Fedora Core 2 with Qmail. The problem is recently Im
> showing emails getting delivered to mailbox with the ***SPAM*** in the
> title, yet the rules state if the email is spam it shouldn't be delivered
to
"delivery" isn't SA's business, "scoring" is. So it is Qmail that isn't
Loren Wilton a écrit :
I've written a number of rules to check for this, so have others. Yes, it
will catch some of the phish.
Unfortunately it also catches just an amazing amount of legit mail. I think
the last statistics were something like 50/50, or maybe even heavier on the
ham side. It
Im using maildrop for that I believe. On a side note would you recommend I
use Amavis instead of maildrop?
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:35 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Spam being delivered
>
===8<---
Status: U
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp.earthlink.net [209.86.93.209]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.5)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (single-drop); Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:55:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail19a.g19.rapidsite.net ([204.202.242.24])
by mx-nebolish.atl.
What's with the unreadable messages that seem to come from this
service. A fellow on the FC4 list is posting messages from his
account at aim.com (AOL) that feature a signature and a walking
man icon but nothing other than quoted content. (I've just given
the entire aim.com host a score of 4.9
jdow wrote:
What's with the unreadable messages that seem to come from this
service. A fellow on the FC4 list is posting messages from his
account at aim.com (AOL) that feature a signature and a walking
man icon but nothing other than quoted content. (I've just given
the entire aim.com host a sco
We have made the experimental SC2 data into the production SC
list. The new version has been tested to catch about 10% more
spam than the old version with no significant increase in false
positives.
Along with this change is the use of a new data engine which has
a shorter cycle time of 5 minutes
The data in be.surbl.org, originally from Chris Santerre's
BigEvil SpamAssassin ruleset, is stale and has been superceded by
ws.surbl.org for a long time now, so we will be shutting down DNS
service for it in one month, at the end of November.
Please update your configurations to use multi.surbl.o
When running rdj, I get the following:
Ruleset for header abuse (sets 0-3) has changed on yoda2.
Version line: # Version: 01.03.16
***WARNING***: spamassassin --lint failed.
Lint output: [25934] warn: config: warning: description exists for
non-existent rule SARE_HEAD_DATE_LONG1
[25934] warn:
On Monday 31 October 2005 12:04 pm, Raul Dias wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded to 3.1.0 (from 3.0.4) and enabled the Domainkeys plugin.
> I patched it with the patch in the bugzilla #4623
> (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3210) as I am
> using Mail::DomainKeys 0.80.
>
> Testing
Ed Kasky wrote:
When running rdj, I get the following:
Ruleset for header abuse (sets 0-3) has changed on yoda2.
Version line: # Version: 01.03.16
***WARNING***: spamassassin --lint failed.
Lint output: [25934] warn: config: warning: description exists for
non-existent rule SARE_HEAD_DATE_LO
At 06:14 PM Monday, 10/31/2005, Doc Schneider wrote -=>
Ed Kasky wrote:
When running rdj, I get the following:
Ruleset for header abuse (sets 0-3) has changed on yoda2.
Version line: # Version: 01.03.16
***WARNING***: spamassassin --lint failed.
Lint output: [25934] warn: config: warning: descr
On Monday 31 October 2005 12:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I might add that im not totally opposed to dumping bayes info and
> starting fresh...would that be an easier solution?
>
>
>
> on 10/31/05 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
>
The below is from the 3.1 upgrade text. I upgrade via CPAN also,
On Monday 31 October 2005 04:22 pm, jdow wrote:
> ===8<---
> Status: U
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from smtp.earthlink.net [209.86.93.209]
> by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.5)
> for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (single-drop); Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:55:59
> -0800 (PST) Received: from m
I upgraded to 3.1.0 (from 3.0.4) and enabled the Domainkeys plugin.
I patched it with the patch in the bugzilla #4623
(http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3210) as I am
using Mail::DomainKeys 0.80.
How do I patch DK using that patch? What commands?
51 matches
Mail list logo
