Is there a smart way of deleting the bayes db?
On 2.6x pretty much just delete the bayes db files and let it start over. I
suppose restarting spamd would be good idea, it usually is when changing
things.
I'd hand-feed the first 200 hams and spams rather than autolearning them,
were I doing it.
Alan Fullmer wrote:
Yes they are rejecting mail for unknown users.
However, currently I have it discard flagged spam, rather than reject
it. Granted there are some that SA does not catch, therefore go into
the whole limbo situation.
I currently have no way for this machine to check the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While referring the previous discussions regarding permissions on
Bayes DB files, I would like to know what should be the permissions
because the log files indicate
autolearn=failed/no
Well no merely indicates that the message did not score high or low
enough to
Hello all,I'm writing this
list in regards to an issue that has developed after I upgraded to Exim
4.60 SpamAssassin 3.1.0. Originally I posted this on the Exim'suser
mailing listwhere I got numerous replies, but nothing concrete answer wise
to what the cause is or the solution is for
Can someone point me in the right direction on exactly what the difference
between the following SPF tests are, please? I assume that SPF_PASS means the
sending domain has an SPF record and the sending server IP matches. However,
the description for SPF_FAIL, SPF_SOFTFAIL, and SPF_NEUTRAL are
I've noticed that many phishing emails contain URLs with one of these two
formats:
http://trusteddomain.com.fakedomain.xx/...
http://fakedomain.xx/.../trusteddomain.com/
where .xx is any TLD and ... is any series of characters. More
specifically, the trusted domain usually ends in .com
On the servers I admin, the user preferences are stored in SQL, yet sa-learn
insists on there being a .spamassassin directory in the users' home
directory, creating it and a default user_prefs file if they do not exist.
Why? What does it need the prefs for? Can it use the SQL preferences? Is
Jason Bertoch wrote:
Can someone point me in the right direction on exactly what the difference
between the following SPF tests are, please? I assume that SPF_PASS means the
sending domain has an SPF record and the sending server IP matches. However,
the description for SPF_FAIL,
Bradley Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However within hours of making this upgrade customers started calling
me nonstop that their email wasn't working.
[snip]
2006-01-10 23:05:23 1EwX9q-00060G-ML **
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] F=
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jason Bertoch escreveu:
Can someone point me in the right direction on exactly what the difference
between the following SPF tests are, please? I assume that SPF_PASS means the
sending domain has an SPF record and the sending server IP matches. However,
the description for SPF_FAIL,
We're considering creating a spam reporting email address that would
automatically pipe received messages to spamassassin -r. Is this a good
idea? Details/thoughts:
% I know that spamassassin -r just reports the hash of the message to
Razor, Pyzor, etc, and therefore only increases our
Stanislaw Halik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my temporary solution would be to put:
timeout_defer
ignore_status
into the SA exim router.
d'oh, sorry. i've meant the transport, not the router.
--
Stanisław Halik, http://tehran.lain.pl
pgpAzWZdIzmNC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Sarang Gupta wrote:
We're considering creating a spam reporting email address that would
automatically pipe received messages to spamassassin -r. Is this a
good idea? Details/thoughts:
Depends on how you intend to get mail there.
If you're talking about a spamtrap, go for it, just keep an eye
Which case is there a record, but the sending server IP
doesn't match?
That depends what the sender's SPF record is set for in
the all clause.
If it's ?all you get SPF_NEUTRAL
If it's ~all you get SPF_SOFTFAIL
if it's -all you get SPF_FAIL.
That makes sense but now the scores for
Hello all.. Novice SA Admin here (well, none of my users complain - wait..
I have none, just me). I recently read something that says sa-learn is
learned for the user who runs sa-learn. I've always run sa-learn as root.
Is there a easy way to copy the contents of what's been learned from root
to
Jason Bertoch escreveu:
That makes sense but now the scores for these rules have me a little
confused.
If a domain administrator indicates that we should fail any message
not sourced
from his IP's, why is the score for SPF_FAIL the smallest of the three?
Shouldn't it be set at or near the
Hello all.. Novice SA Admin here (well, none of my users complain - wait..
I have none, just me). I recently read something that says sa-learn is
learned for the user who runs sa-learn. I've always run sa-learn as root.
Is there a easy way to copy the contents of what's been learned from root
to
Mike Jackson wrote:
Hello all.. Novice SA Admin here (well, none of my users complain -
wait..
I have none, just me). I recently read something that says sa-learn is
learned for the user who runs sa-learn. I've always run sa-learn as root.
Is there a easy way to copy the contents of what's been
-Original Message-
From: Mike Sassaman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:48 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA )
% spamassassin --lint shows no output, so I'm thinking
that means no
On Thu, January 19, 2006 11:14 am, Mike Jackson wrote:
If it's saved in an SQL database, I imagine you could do a simple UPDATE
query to change the username, like...
UPDATE bayes_vars SET username='username' WHERE username='root';
(Apologies if that's MySQL-specific. It's what I use.)
I
Jason Bertoch wrote:
Which case is there a record, but the sending server IP
doesn't match?
That depends what the sender's SPF record is set for in
the all clause.
If it's ?all you get SPF_NEUTRAL
If it's ~all you get SPF_SOFTFAIL
if it's -all you get SPF_FAIL.
That makes sense
Bradley:
Fought the same battle here just last week literally. With the help of
Larry Rosenman from the SA/Exim lists we got it working VERY well
here. It's basically a machine load issue for me, and I'm guessing for
you as well.
First thing...with SA are you running either of these rules:
Mike Sassaman wrote:
Ok, so according to the logs it seems that just about every spam message is
hitting the ALL_TRUSTED rule. Maybe this is my problem. I understand that
indicates a broken trust path, as told here:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath
But why is my trust
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
Mike Sassaman wrote:
Ok, so according to the logs it seems that just about every spam message is
hitting the ALL_TRUSTED rule. Maybe this is my problem. I understand that
indicates a broken trust path, as told here:
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:01 PM
To: Mike Sassaman
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA )
Mike Sassaman wrote:
Ok, so according to the logs
Mike Sassaman wrote:
Thanks - I tried the /32 but it doesn't appear to have worked. Because of
shear volume of messages hitting ALL_TRUSTED, it seems that it must be more
than unparsable Received: headers, unless there is an awful lot of mail with
unparsable headers.
Well, if SA can't
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:37 PM
To: Mike Sassaman
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA )
Mike Sassaman wrote:
Thanks - I tried the /32 but it
Jason Bertoch a écrit :
pedestal
It's my opinion that if an administrator misconfigured his SPF record, or a
number of other things on their side, it is their fault that mail cannot be
delivered. In the case of SPF_FAIL, they have explicitly told us they don't
want mail to come from a
Jason Bertoch wrote:
pedestal
It's my opinion that if an administrator misconfigured his SPF record, or a
number of other things on their side, it is their fault that mail cannot be
delivered. In the case of SPF_FAIL, they have explicitly told us they don't
want mail to come from a server not
Is Spamassassin supposed to automatically delete lock files when completed?
I am just wondering why so many files are created, some timestamps are from
the previous day.
My log files show the following:
Jan 19 14:17:06 mail spamd[22166]: debug: lock: 22166 trying to get lock on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan Fullmer writes:
Is Spamassassin supposed to automatically delete lock files when completed?
I am just wondering why so many files are created, some timestamps are from
the previous day.
My log files show the following:
Jan 19 14:17:06
Mike Sassaman wrote:
How could I check to see if I was generating unparseable
headers (and hopefully fix)?
You could run a message through spamassassin -D and look at the debug output.
There's a section in there where it's parsing the Received: headers. Just make
sure it's not missing any.
Is Spamassassin supposed to automatically delete lock files when completed?
I am just wondering why so many files are created, some timestamps are from
the previous day.
My log files show the following:
Jan 19 14:17:06 mail spamd[22166]: debug: lock: 22166 trying to get lock on
Does ANYONE
have any ideas on what direction to take??!
I can't
specifically help with your problem, I don't use Exim and have never seein
anything like this reported.
However, if 3.0.5 will work for you that would certainly be a pretty gool
alternative to 3.1.0 until whatever this
Thanks - I tried the /32 but it doesn't appear to have worked. Because of
shear volume of messages hitting ALL_TRUSTED, it seems that it must be
more
than unparsable Received: headers, unless there is an awful lot of mail
with
unparsable headers.
You could post a set of headers or two. Lots
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Mike Sassaman wrote:
Well, if SA can't parse the format generated by your
mailserver, that would
affect all messages which don't have any additional Received:
headers beyond the
local delivery (which would be nearly all your spam/virus email).
Fair enough. I am
SpamAssassin is a wonderful program, thanks.
My ISP has implemented it.
My ISP gives me this option:
To simply have the server DELETE and NOT deliver emails that are
tagged as spam by SpamAssassin, click here now.
My problem is that I enabled this automatic delete option and would
like to
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:39:58PM -0500, Alan Henney wrote:
SpamAssassin is a wonderful program, thanks.
:)
My ISP gives me this option:
To simply have the server DELETE and NOT deliver emails that are
tagged as spam by SpamAssassin, click here now.
My problem is that I enabled this
Anyone have any pointers on setting up an outbound MTA spam filter with
qmail? I have spamassassin working on inbound, but want to prevent/block
users from sending spam.
Thanks!
39 matches
Mail list logo
