Good questions. Not being the one who configures SpamAssassin, I thought it might be configured to know it's own domain name.If the header "indicates the original domain *to which the message was sent*" then I guess I was misinterpretting the meaning.Thanks for the input.- Original Message ---
John Oliver wrote:
Is there a control panel that will use /etc/passwd for authentication?
I found websuerprefs but it looks like it would have to be copied to
each users home directory and then use htpasswd which would be
cumbersome. I'm hoping to find something that users can log in with
their
Is there a control panel that will use /etc/passwd for authentication?
I found websuerprefs but it looks like it would have to be copied to
each users home directory and then use htpasswd which would be
cumbersome. I'm hoping to find something that users can log in with
their regular mail usernam
Chris Arnold wrote:
> Warning: 2.63 is vulnerable to a DoS attack. Not to mention extraordinarily
> old.
> If you're stuck in 2.6x, at least upgrade to 2.64:
>
> http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Mail/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64.tar.gz
>
> I am having a hrad time trying to upgrade to any version
That's right, it is built on SLES9. The rpm was in the
usr/src/packages/RPMS folder. Thank you so much!
Chris
Stuart Johnston wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hello all! I am new to spamassassin and in need of upgrade how-to. I am
>> using Novell's OES SP1 with hula mailserver r1211 and spama
Hi All,
Can someone tell me if this header should fail any rules in an off-the-shelf
installation of SA 3.1.1? I'm using sendmail as the MTA.
Received: from 10.0.0.9(internalhost.validdomain.com [10.0.0.9]) by
externalhost.validdomain.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3IKx58A030016
for <[
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all! I am new to spamassassin and in need of upgrade how-to. I am
using Novell's OES SP1 with hula mailserver r1211 and spamassassin 2.63.
I downloaded mail-spamassassin-3.1.1.tar.gz and built an rpm using
rpmbuild -tb Mail-Spamassassin-3.1.1.tar.gz. This process co
Warning: 2.63 is vulnerable to a DoS attack. Not to mention extraordinarily old.
If you're stuck in 2.6x, at least upgrade to 2.64:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Mail/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64.tar.gz
I am having a hrad time trying to upgrade to any version (i sent an email to
the list about
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Using spamassassin 2.63 on Novell OES SP1.
Warning: 2.63 is vulnerable to a DoS attack. Not to mention extraordinarily old.
If you're stuck in 2.6x, at least upgrade to 2.64:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Mail/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64.tar.gz
> Also, i have the l
Using spamassassin 2.63 on Novell OES SP1.
Also, i have the local.cf file in etc/mail/spamassassin. If i want to
use any of the "tests" (like dnsbl), do i copy the
/usr/share/spamassassin/20_dnsbl_tests.cf file contents into the
local.cf file? Thanks in advance
Chris
begin:vcard
n:Arnold;Chris
fn
Hello all! I am new to spamassassin and in need of upgrade how-to. I am
using Novell's OES SP1 with hula mailserver r1211 and spamassassin 2.63.
I downloaded mail-spamassassin-3.1.1.tar.gz and built an rpm using
rpmbuild -tb Mail-Spamassassin-3.1.1.tar.gz. This process completed but
i do not see th
Hi,
There's the option "rewrite_header Subject" in the local.cf file, however,
I've been observing when looking through the spam folder that sorting by
subject is more helpful when looking for incorrectly caught emails since
many emails often have the same subject and different from fields,
includi
Richard Collyer wrote:
I have done some dig requests using the hosts in the debug file and they
are getting returned ok. Strange thing is that sometimes 18 or 38 pass,
sometimes 25 of 38 pass there seems to be no pattern to them failing.
There is a firewall running (nothing that would stop th
Tracey Gates wrote:
>
> When I run spamassassin --lint I get a lot of warnings like the
> following for several rules:
>
> [22484] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
> SUBJECT_DRUG_GAP_VIA
It looks like you have a score statement somewhere trying to over-ride the score
of S
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 02:55:03PM -0500, Tracey Gates wrote:
> [22562] error: persistent_udp: no such method at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm line 98
What version of Net::DNS do you have installed
(perl -MNet::DNS -e 'print $Net::DNS::VERSION,"\n"' -- or you co
Theo - I saw that I only upgraded the perl modules so I also ran rpm -U
on the spamassassin package. It took care of that error but when I try
to do a spamd -d I get the following error:
[22562] error: persistent_udp: no such method at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.
John Rudd wrote:
It might be good to try running some tests with -L and some tests
without -L, to see if the same test is fast without the network check.
That would help isolate the problem to "is SpamAssassin slow" or "is
SpamAssassin spending a lot of time waiting for DNS results". It
pr
I went to the /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.1.1 directory
that the rpmbuild created and did a listing:
-rw-r--r--1 root root12953 Mar 10 13:30 UPGRADE
-rw-r--r--1 root root 927 Mar 10 13:30 STATUS
-rwxr-xr-x1 root root41293 Mar 10 13:30
Tracey Gates wrote:
> I did a find and here are the results:
>
> ./etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd
> ./usr/bin/spamd
> ./usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2/spamd
> ./usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2/spamd/spamd
> ./usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2/blib/script/spamd
> ./usr/
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:53:08PM -0500, Tracey Gates wrote:
> -Original Message-
> > stopped spamd and tried to restart it and got the following error
> > message:
> > ERROR! spamassassin script is v3.02, but using modules v3.001001!
That error only comes when you run "spamassassin"
I did a find and here are the results:
./etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd
./usr/bin/spamd
./usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2/spamd
./usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2/spamd/spamd
./usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2/blib/script/spamd
./usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3
Tracey Gates wrote:
> I followed the installation/upgrade instructions for version 3.1.0 and
> renamed the local.cf.rpmnew file to be my local.cf file with my scoring
> set and whitelist_from_rcvd & blacklist_from entries. I stopped spamd
> and tried to restart it and got the following error messa
Title: Message
I followed the
installation/upgrade instructions for version 3.1.0 and renamed the
local.cf.rpmnew file to be my local.cf file with my scoring set and
whitelist_from_rcvd & blacklist_from entries. I stopped spamd and
tried to restart it and got the following error message:
ER
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:57:31PM -0400, Clay Davis wrote:
> Does anyone have a simple batch file that will run all the files in a
> directory through SA and output the results to a log file.
see the masses/mass-check script. :)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Abstainer, n.:
A weak pers
Does anyone have a simple batch file that will run all the files in a directory
through SA and output the results to a log file.
I am trying to understand why some messages slip through SA by manually
scanning them so I can see where my scoring is falling short or not scoring at
all.
Thanks,
C
Tracee wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm a little green to SA & its rules but wouldn't it make sense to have
> a rule that acts upon the
>
> X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain: your.domain.here header?
>
> If it matches your own domain name then give it high rating. There must
> be a good reason why SA
Tracee wrote:
I'm a little green to SA & its rules but wouldn't it make sense to have
a rule that acts upon the
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain: your.domain.here header?
If it matches your own domain name then give it high rating. There must
be a good reason why SA hasn't done this alread
Tracee wrote:
>
> I'm a little green to SA & its rules but wouldn't it make sense to
> have a rule that acts upon the
>
> X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain: your.domain.here header?
>
> If it matches your own domain name then give it high rating. There
> must be a good reason why SA hasn't don
Hi guys, I'm a little green to SA & its rules but wouldn't it make sense to have a rule that acts upon the X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain: your.domain.here header? If it matches your own domain name then give it high rating. There must be a good reason why SA hasn't done this already so I'd li
I'm getting false positives on mail that mentions the show Desperate
Housewives. There is a rule in 70_sare_adult.cf that gives 1.322 points just
for having the word 'housewives'
The comments show this was done in March 2004 -- months before the show went
on the air. Perhaps it's time to resco
mouss wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sorry if this has been asked ad-nauseum, but by default, the
> > Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL is enabled.
> >
> > From what I've been able to find on this topic, AWL is intended to
> > be a user or system maintained database of whitelisted "from"
> >
Benjamin Adams wrote:
> I have some email that are being marked as spam that I want to takeout.
> I'm looking at changing the rule score:
> Rules that are being hit:( From 50_scores.cf)
> score MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID 1.103 0.927 1.183 1.393
> score RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH 3.200 3.200 3.700 4.000
> score
From: "Benjamin Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have some email that are being marked as spam that I want to
takeout. I'm looking at changing the rule score:
Rules that are being hit:( From 50_scores.cf)
score MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID 1.103 0.927 1.183 1.393
score RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH 3.200 3.200 3.70
Wednesday 19 April 2006 16:40 Benjamin Adams wrote:
> Can someone explain the 4 numbers for me?
> Thanks
It's in the documentation:
> If four valid scores are listed, then the score that is used
> depends on how SpamAssassin is being used. The first score is used when
> both Bayes and network tes
I have some email that are being marked as spam that I want to
takeout. I'm looking at changing the rule score:
Rules that are being hit:( From 50_scores.cf)
score MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID 1.103 0.927 1.183 1.393
score RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH 3.200 3.200 3.700 4.000
score RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO 1.440 1.253 1
scott mccollum wrote:
> We have a website built by a contracted programmer... the website will send
> an email (using CDOsys) when sending to a client with spamassassin the
> email was blocked one of our users is copied on the email..she can
> forward the email to the client and it w
We have a website built by a contracted programmer... the website will send
an email (using CDOsys) when sending to a client with spamassassin the
email was blocked one of our users is copied on the email..she can
forward the email to the client and it will get through the spamassas
Andrew wrote:
>
>
> Is this normal behaviour even when using an SQL database to store the
> AWL?
No, but you're not using a SQL database for the AWL, read on.
>
> Here are the relevant parameters from my local.cf file.
>
> user_awl_dsn DBI:mysql:saawl:localhost:3306
> user_awl_sql_u
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote:
>
>> I'm getting a bunch of these
>> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
>> tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001
>>
>
> Your message gave me:
>
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.75 t
> gedoesn't outlook/exchange remove/rewrite some headers at reception
> time, thus making it impossible to retriev the original message?
This method has worked well for us but due
to your specific question I diff'd some originals
against the forwarded copies.
There are SOME differences -- it see
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It seems like spamd won't scan anything over 8122 bytes. First I
Spamd will normally scan files up to at least 250kb. This sounds like you
have some sort of problem with the sockets you are using.
Or an EXIM issue.
{^_^}
> It seems like spamd won't scan anything over 8122 bytes. First I
Spamd will normally scan files up to at least 250kb. This sounds like you
have some sort of problem with the sockets you are using.
Loren
On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote:
> I'm getting a bunch of these
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
> tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001
Your message gave me:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=DRUGS_ERECTI
43 matches
Mail list logo
