Re: X-Spam headers placement issue

2005-12-07 Thread jdow
From: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't bother to try to report spam with that header placement if you expect outfits that use DCC to respond. Placing the headers at the bottom that way will screw up the DCC hash they can use to identify the message details

Re: Learning at an MTA

2005-12-07 Thread mouss
Alan Gutierrez a écrit : if the user didn't copy the FP message (he just moved it to the Junk/Error folder, then it should be redelivered after sa-learn (but one must make sure it is not delivered to the Junk folder again). I hope this is the final piece of the puzzle, but, how do you

Rule for Stock Spam

2005-12-07 Thread Matthew Daubenspeck
Recently I have been receiving a TON of Stock Spam lately. For the most part, the subject is news related (news, updated news, breaking news, etc) and the message itself is empty except for a .GIF file with Stock information on it. Has anyone seen these and come up with a custom rule to stop them?

RE: SpamAssassin 3.0.5 RELEASED

2005-12-07 Thread Rose, Bobby
Is anyone else having problems getting to www.apache.org? I've tried from work and from home. The site acts like it's trying to load and then eventually gives the generic cannot find server or DNS error. It's not DNS because the FQDN resolves. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: SpamAssassin 3.0.5 RELEASED

2005-12-07 Thread François Conil
Rose, Bobby wrote: Is anyone else having problems getting to www.apache.org? I've tried from work and from home. The site acts like it's trying to load and then eventually gives the generic cannot find server or DNS error. It's not DNS because the FQDN resolves. Same here. -- François

Are Duplicate Rules OK?

2005-12-07 Thread Clay Davis
How does SpamAssassin handle rulesthat are duplicated in different .cf files? Which takes precedence? Thanks, Clay

Storing Global Rules in mysql

2005-12-07 Thread mrtg
Hi there, is there a way to store global filter rules in mysql? I have written an web frontend for administering spamassassin rules. But at the moment i got the problem to store all rules in one file (it's to big and makes the server slow). i searched with google, but i found just solutions to

Re: URIBL False positive

2005-12-07 Thread Jeff Chan
On Tuesday, December 6, 2005, 1:26:32 PM, Brian Leyton wrote: I'm relatively new to SpamAssassin, but I've managed to get it working well in conjunction with MimeDefang. I'm having a strange problem though, which I hope someone can help me figure out. I'm on a hobby mailing list, and

Re: submit to spamcop

2005-12-07 Thread Jeff Chan
On Tuesday, December 6, 2005, 7:01:45 AM, Jean-Paul Natola wrote: I received another one of those HTML messages about stock quotes [...] The previous ones were stopped due to the IP being listed in spamcop, I would like to report the IP this one came from BUT , I would like to make

RE: URIBL False positive

2005-12-07 Thread Brian Leyton
Jeff Chan wrote: What version of SpamAssassin are you using? There is a bug in 3.0.x that can cause intermittent errors like this. Spamassassin -V reports: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 running on Perl version 5.8.6 Brian Leyton IT Manager Commercial Petroleum Equipment

Re: URIBL False positive

2005-12-07 Thread Jeff Chan
On Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 8:14:43 AM, Brian Leyton wrote: Jeff Chan wrote: What version of SpamAssassin are you using? There is a bug in 3.0.x that can cause intermittent errors like this. Spamassassin -V reports: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 running on Perl version 5.8.6 Brian

RE: URIBL False positive

2005-12-07 Thread Brian Leyton
Jeff Chan wrote: OK I can't remember if that one has the bug fix or not. 3.1 definitely does. What was the specific FP domain? Here's the scoring section of the SA report: Content analysis details: (5.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description

Re: Storing Global Rules in mysql

2005-12-07 Thread Mike Jackson
is there a way to store global filter rules in mysql? I have written an web frontend for administering spamassassin rules. But at the moment i got the problem to store all rules in one file (it's to big and makes the server slow). i searched with google, but i found just solutions to store

Re: URIBL False positive

2005-12-07 Thread Jeff Chan
On Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 8:31:06 AM, Brian Leyton wrote: Jeff Chan wrote: OK I can't remember if that one has the bug fix or not. 3.1 definitely does. What was the specific FP domain? Here's the scoring section of the SA report: Content analysis details: (5.5 points, 5.0

Re: Are Duplicate Rules OK?

2005-12-07 Thread Matt Kettler
Clay Davis wrote: How does SpamAssassin handle rules that are duplicated in different .cf files? Yes. Which takes precedence? last parsed. (They're parsed default dir, site dir, user prefs, and in alpha-order within directories)

RE: URIBL False positive

2005-12-07 Thread Brian Leyton
Jeff Chan wrote: Thanks. americanbroadcastdx.com was never on any SURBLs, so it's probably the bug. Please consider upgrading to 3.1 or possibly even 3.0.5 as this may fix the bug: http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3997 The developers will know for sure about

Re: Are Duplicate Rules OK?

2005-12-07 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:22:46PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: last parsed. (They're parsed default dir, site dir, user prefs, and in alpha-order within directories) ... and as usual, run with -D and it'll tell you the exact order it's using (along with a bunch of other potentially interesting

Re: Rule for Stock Spam

2005-12-07 Thread Chris Stone
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 06:33 am, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote: Recently I have been receiving a TON of Stock Spam lately. For the most part, the subject is news related (news, updated news, breaking news, etc) and the message itself is empty except for a .GIF file with Stock information on

Re: SpamAssassin 3.0.5 RELEASED

2005-12-07 Thread Chris Stone
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 06:44 am, François Conil wrote: Rose, Bobby wrote: Is anyone else having problems getting to www.apache.org? I've tried from work and from home. The site acts like it's trying to load and then eventually gives the generic cannot find server or DNS error.

false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread Russ Ringer
Why did this message trigger these rules? The email was not sent directly from a dial-up IP. RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP [209.30.176.199 listed in combined.njabl.org] RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread Matt Kettler
Russ Ringer wrote: Why did this message trigger these rules? The email was not sent directly from a dial-up IP. Is your trusted_networks set correctly? Note: if you have a NATed mailserver you MUST set this manually, otherwise SA will mis-detect external mailservers as being a part of your

Re: SpamAssassin 3.0.5 RELEASED

2005-12-07 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:41:58AM -0500, Rose, Bobby wrote: Is anyone else having problems getting to www.apache.org? I've tried from work and from home. The site acts like it's trying to load and then eventually gives the generic cannot find server or DNS error. It's not DNS because the

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread mouss
Matt Kettler a écrit : Russ Ringer wrote: Why did this message trigger these rules? The email was not sent directly from a dial-up IP. Is your trusted_networks set correctly? Note: if you have a NATed mailserver you MUST set this manually, otherwise SA will mis-detect external mailservers

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread Matt Kettler
mouss wrote: Matt Kettler a écrit : Russ Ringer wrote: Why did this message trigger these rules? The email was not sent directly from a dial-up IP. Is your trusted_networks set correctly? Note: if you have a NATed mailserver you MUST set this manually, otherwise SA will mis-detect

False positive problem from mis-parsing Received lines?

2005-12-07 Thread mazieres
I'm using SpamAssassin version 3.1.0 with default options, and have run into a serious false positive problem. When I receive mail from one of my correspondents, I get Received: lines like this one: Received: from adsl-71-133-227-154.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net (71.133.227.154) (HELO genstor.com)

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Mouss wrote on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:35:32 +0100: my own messages to this list get a RCVD_IN_SORBS on my own SA. my first reaction is to remove all sorbs tests (because I don't believe in sorbs), but I still wanna understand why this happens. You have to make a distinction between an IP being

Re: False positive problem from mis-parsing Received lines?

2005-12-07 Thread Matt Kettler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm using SpamAssassin version 3.1.0 with default options, and have run into a serious false positive problem. When I receive mail from one of my correspondents, I get Received: lines like this one: Received: from adsl-71-133-227-154.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net

Re: False positive problem from mis-parsing Received lines?

2005-12-07 Thread Justin Mason
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Kettler writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm using SpamAssassin version 3.1.0 with default options, and have run into a serious false positive problem. When I receive mail from one of my correspondents, I get Received: lines like this

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread jdow
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] mouss wrote: Matt Kettler a écrit : Russ Ringer wrote: Why did this message trigger these rules? The email was not sent directly from a dial-up IP. Is your trusted_networks set correctly? Note: if you have a NATed mailserver you MUST set this

Re: False positive problem from mis-parsing Received lines?

2005-12-07 Thread Kai Schaetzl
wrote on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:15:05 -0800: A friend has suggested this may be a bug in the way that SpamAssassin parses the Received header. Is this, in fact, a bug in SpamAssassin? Or is my SMTP server generating Received: headers using an incorrect format? Not an incorrect format, but

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Jdow wrote on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:18:31 -0800: And it seems SORBS in whatever wisdom they have has Mouss' free.fr smtp host tagged. Well, if you would just go and check you'd know why it is on their list: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=212.27.42.29 As you see it's on their spam

Re: False positive problem from mis-parsing Received lines?

2005-12-07 Thread mazieres
On 12/7/05, Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not an incorrect format, but probably a format that SA mismatches, yes. Looking at the rules (which look rather complex, so I may misinterpet it) it seems it matches on the dsl part and on the IP address of the header line instead of the HELO

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread jdow
From: Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jdow wrote on Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:18:31 -0800: And it seems SORBS in whatever wisdom they have has Mouss' free.fr smtp host tagged. Well, if you would just go and check you'd know why it is on their list:

Re: False positive problem from mis-parsing Received lines?

2005-12-07 Thread jdow
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/7/05, Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not an incorrect format, but probably a format that SA mismatches, yes. Looking at the rules (which look rather complex, so I may misinterpet it) it seems it matches on the dsl part and on the IP address of the header

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread Russ Ringer
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:31:21 +0100, you wrote: 2. next check if that IP delivered directly to you (= your mail server) or not. If yes, then this hit is legitimate. It's not your IP and it delivered directly to you. That's exactly the kind of IP you want to check if it is on a blacklist. I

Re: false positive in RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL test

2005-12-07 Thread Russ Ringer
Is your trusted_networks set correctly? Note: if you have a NATed mailserver you MUST set this manually, otherwise SA will mis-detect external mailservers as being a part of your network and this rule will misfire. Other common signs of incorrect trusted_networks are ALL_TRUSTED matching spam,