Re: Personal rule matching ToCc

2006-02-04 Thread Matt Kettler
Ramprasad wrote: Hi, I want to write a personal rule to match recipients of a particular domain The rule I am using now is header __TO_DOMAIN_NETToCc =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i But the above rule would match @domain.net as well as @domain.net.in Which is the best way to match

Re: Couple of newbie questions... (repost)

2006-02-04 Thread Matt Kettler
Philip Prindeville wrote: Hi. I just joined the list, and I do a little peripheral work with Mimedefang and Thunderbird, sendmail, etc. In working with MdF, the following issue came up. We're running SpamAssassin 3.0.4, Mimedefang 2.55, Perl 5.8.5, and Sendmail 8.13.1... all on Redhat FC3

Re: auto_whitelist path error

2006-02-04 Thread Matt Kettler
Jeff Koch wrote: I'm getting this spamd error in the maillogs and I have AWL turned off. We're also using vpopmail and have the following spamd starting parameters: SPAMDOPTIONS=-d -c -m5 -H -q -u vpopmail Can anyone tell me what we're doing wrong? Feb 4 02:33:24 libra spamd[2948]:

Re: Couple of newbie questions... (repost)

2006-02-04 Thread Matt Kettler
Philip Prindeville wrote: snip Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs. Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: failed Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 REPLY: 550_5.0.0_This_provider_is_blacklisted Sorry, I don't help people who block off

Whitelist misunderstanding regarding performance

2006-02-04 Thread Eric Carlson
SA 3.0.2 on FC3. I added a whitelist_from entry for the local domain in local.cf and understood it would add -100 to the score. The problem is performance of mantis, our bugtracker, which sends email for each action. Turns out SA is still scanning each mail where I really wanted it to just ignore

Re: Whitelist misunderstanding regarding performance

2006-02-04 Thread Matt Kettler
Eric Carlson wrote: SA 3.0.2 on FC3. I added a whitelist_from entry for the local domain in local.cf and understood it would add -100 to the score. The problem is performance of mantis, our bugtracker, which sends email for each action. Turns out SA is still scanning each mail where I really

Re: Personal rule matching ToCc

2006-02-04 Thread mouss
Matt Kettler a écrit : Ramprasad wrote: Hi, I want to write a personal rule to match recipients of a particular domain The rule I am using now is header __TO_DOMAIN_NETToCc =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i But the above rule would match @domain.net as well as @domain.net.in Which is the

Re: Rule to catch strange Sender Address?

2006-02-04 Thread mouss
Larry Starr a écrit : Lately I have seen a number of SPAM messages with a sender in the form of: @somedomain.whatever sender envelope or From header? Can you send me a copy? for example: @ipyub.com I'm not sure if this is intentional or simply broken ratware. I guess it is broken.

Re: make test fails and aborts CPAN upgrade to 3.10

2006-02-04 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Michael Einem wrote: Hello All, I've been using SA since 2.3 with no problems whatsoever. First on a Debian 3 and since 3.0 on FreeBSD 4.10. I was trying to upgrade to 3.10 using CPAN and run into following problem: The make went ok but testing failed several tests and aborted. 3.00 runs on

McDonalds

2006-02-04 Thread Gene Heskett
Has anyone noticed that the SA scores for the McDONALDS Customer # spam are getting lower and lower? Another .4 reduction and they'll pass SA here! -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses

Re: McDonalds

2006-02-04 Thread jdow
From: Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Has anyone noticed that the SA scores for the McDONALDS Customer # spam are getting lower and lower? Another .4 reduction and they'll pass SA here! Out of curiosity check your wallet and see what your McDonalds Customer number on your discount card is.

RE: McDonalds

2006-02-04 Thread Gary W. Smith
Craploads... They are scoring .2 under my threshold. But I haven't seen any decrease in the level. I was meaning to train these into bayes... X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.8 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SBL,URIBL_SBL autolearn=no version=3.1.0 -Original

Re: McDonalds

2006-02-04 Thread Matt Kettler
jdow wrote: From: Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Has anyone noticed that the SA scores for the McDONALDS Customer # spam are getting lower and lower? Another .4 reduction and they'll pass SA here! Out of curiosity check your wallet and see what your McDonalds Customer number on your

Re: McDonalds

2006-02-04 Thread Gene Heskett
On Saturday 04 February 2006 19:53, jdow wrote: From: Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Has anyone noticed that the SA scores for the McDONALDS Customer # spam are getting lower and lower? Another .4 reduction and they'll pass SA here! Out of curiosity check your wallet and see what your

spam still isn't being caught much.

2006-02-04 Thread Brian S. Meehan
I'm using spamassassin with bayes filtering, nightly I use sa-learn to go though the folders I have, learning spam and learning ham. This has gone on for about 6 weeks now with me moving the uncaught spam messages that are in my inbox into the spam folder. I know it has well over 200 messages as

Re: spam still isn't being caught much.

2006-02-04 Thread Matt Kettler
Brian S. Meehan wrote: My question is, why is it only catching 49% of spam messages? I have the required # set to 4.0 That's pretty low.. Some questions: 1) What version of SA are you using? 2) can you post an X-Spam-Status header from one of your spams that didn't get caught? Are there