And that trick could also very well cause you to loose legitimate e-mail..
I don't think it's RFC compliant either.
Somehow, this feels to me like throwing out your garbage on the street and then
saying, Hey I got rid of it.
-Sietse
From: Marc Perkel
David Landgren wrote:
[...]
% perl5.9.4 racmp host.1k
assembled 4145 patterns in 3.83324813842773 seconds
R::A: good = 971, bad = 29 in 0.0148990154266357 seconds
list: good = 971, bad = 29 in 5.72843599319458 seconds
A_C: good = 971, bad = 29 in 8.56000709533691 seconds
RA len: 87491
A_C len
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 7/12/06, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> There's been a fellow over on the procmail list claiming for well over
> a year now that he can get better accuracy than SA through message
> header analysis alone
His claim might well be true.
O
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Paul Dudley wrote:
> We are using SA 3.0.4.
>
> If we decide to reject low grade spam messages rather than quarantine
> them, is it possible to add text to the body of the rejection message?
>
> Paul Dudley
Assuming you are talking about a true SMTP-reject operation, no.
You
This did the job.. :)
Thanks Bowie.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Problems-on-rethad-9.0-tf1929957.html#a5299593
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
On 7/12/06, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> There's been a fellow over on the procmail list claiming for well over
> a year now that he can get better accuracy than SA through message
> header analysis alone
His claim might well be true.
Oh, I have no doubt that
- Original Message -
From: Steven Stern
To: Spamass
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Image only spam
Jack Gostl wrote:> Thanks for the response.>> Take it
slow with me, spamassassin has been running so well for so > long that I
haven't had to fiddle with it in
hansje2000 wrote:
>
> Now the problem.
> In the normal way by booting up redhat, he starts his first rule for
> spamassassin in /etc/sysconfig/spamassassin
> In this simple .txt file I can put minor options like:
> SPAMDOPTIONS="-d -c -u mail"
> I tried to fill this .txt file to get a good output
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 7/12/06, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Catchy subject line eh?
What you really mean is "the best way to use SpamAssassin is as an
analysis tool."
Which of course is what the best way to use it always was. You're
just abstracting the analysis rather than app
Rob Poe wrote:
Of course that 5% is very important because that is where I get the
data
for the other tests that allow me to bypass filtering. But - I want
you
all to start thinking of a new way to look at spam filtering. I have
some concepts
Thanks to all folks for reply.
This forum its not a discussion about OS.
But for the people who say that I have to update the OS is not that simple.
I run this OS as a server 24/7 4 years now and didn?t let me and himself
down.
So to update this system is not that easy and fast, because it runs m
Jack Gostl wrote:
Thanks for the response.
Take it slow with me, spamassassin has been running so well for so
long that I haven't had to fiddle with it in ages and I don't remember
the details. Do I add these rules to my user_prefs? Or to my
/etc/mail/local.cf files?
- Original Message
On Wednesday July 12 2006 2:36 pm, Jack Gostl wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Image only spam
>
> > (1) I currently have no local.cf. I assume the default location
> > is /etc/mail/spamas
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Loren Wilton wrote:
NO! That string is part of the configuration file for RulesDuJour, ir RDJ is
it is commonly referenced.
I'm not sure you need the RulesDuJour to catch this image-only
spam. I'm regularly getting such messages (composed of just a
big block of GIFs), and
On 7/12/06, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Catchy subject line eh?
What you really mean is "the best way to use SpamAssassin is as an
analysis tool."
Which of course is what the best way to use it always was. You're
just abstracting the analysis rather than applying it directly.
The
- Original Message -
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Image only spam
(1) I currently have no local.cf. I assume the default location is
/etc/mail/spamassassin.
This seems rather amazing. This is the normal place tha
>Of course that 5% is very important because that is where I get the
data
>for the other tests that allow me to bypass filtering. But - I want
you
>all to start thinking of a new way to look at spam filtering. I have
>some concepts that I'm testing that seem to be working well and if
>widely di
On Wednesday July 12 2006 1:48 pm, Loren Wilton wrote:
> (1) I currently have no local.cf. I assume the default location is
> /etc/mail/spamassassin.
>
> This seems rather amazing. This is the normal place that the
> standard SA options live.
>
> Grep around for *.cf files and see where they live.
> I'm going to take this slow if I screw it up and a full load of spam
> hits this place I'll have to leave town.
>
> (1) I currently have no local.cf. I assume the default location is
> /etc/mail/spamassassin.
>
> (2) I assume that I just add the string:
>
> TRUSTED_RULESETS="SARE_GENLSUBJ0 S
(1) I currently have no local.cf. I assume the default location is
/etc/mail/spamassassin.
This seems rather amazing. This is the normal place that the standard SA
options live.
Grep around for *.cf files and see where they live. You really should find
some in two different places. There
I'm going to take this slow if I screw it up and a
full load of spam hits this place I'll have to leave town.
(1) I currently have no local.cf. I assume the default
location is /etc/mail/spamassassin.
(2) I assume that I just add the string:
TRUSTED_RULESETS="SARE_GENLSUBJ0 SARE_OBFU
Catchy subject line eh?
OK - so what I mean by this is that I now use SA for about 5% of all
incoming email. The reaso of spam is rejected before I get to SA through
a fairly large number of tricks that allow me to determine with near
100% accuracy things that are spam. It is none mostly throu
Justin Mason did write:
David Landgren writes:
[...]
That is, the assembled approach runs in under 1/500th of the time of
looping through the list of REs. A_C is even worse, but given that the
pattern is over twice as long, and chock full of metacharacters I
suppose this shouldn't come as a
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Nicholas Payne-Roberts wrote:
> I am now trying to figure out how to use find in a similar way to
> tidy up those Junk E-mail directories by deleting them after they
> have been used to learn from.
Keep 'em. It simplifies retraining from scratch should you need to do
so and u
Yes
- Original Message -
From:
Joe Zitnik
To: Bowie Bailey ; Spamass
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:28
AM
Subject: RE: Image only spam
After you stop and restart SA, correct?>>> On
7/12/2006 at 10:48 AM, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack
Gostl w
David Landgren writes:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> While I doubt it'd have quite the performance gains that A-C can
> >> offer, Regexp::Assemble certainly sounds like something worth
> >> trying...
> >> the coderef trick, in particular, is very nifty.
>
> Forgot to me
After you stop and restart SA, correct?>>> On 7/12/2006 at 10:48 AM, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Gostl wrote:> Thanks for the response.> > Take it slow with me, spamassassin has been running so well for so> long that I haven't had to fiddle with it in ages and I don't> remember th
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I doubt it'd have quite the performance gains that A-C can
offer, Regexp::Assemble certainly sounds like something worth
trying...
the coderef trick, in particular, is very nifty.
Forgot to mention in the other thread I just replied to, if yo
Stuart Johnston wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I doubt it'd have quite the performance gains that A-C can
offer, Regexp::Assemble certainly sounds like something worth
trying... the coderef trick, in particular, is very nifty.
It can work well. After reading about
I'm running SpamAssassin version 3.0.3 running on Perl version 5.8.2
under AIX 5.3. Starting a few months ago, I have been absolutely inundated
with "image only spam". I've gone from catching 99% of the spam with
almost no
Have you tried any of the SARE rules? A number of them will help wi
Stuart Johnston wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > While I doubt it'd have quite the performance gains that A-C can
> > > offer, Regexp::Assemble certainly sounds like something worth
> > > trying... the coderef trick, in particular, is very nifty.
> >
> > It can work
Setup:
SA 3.1.3 on OpenBSD 3.7, with Exim 4.52
Spamd started as:
# /usr/bin/spamd -d -m 15 -u spamass -r /var/tmp/spamd.pid
Exim runs as the user "exim" with the group "exim"
Problem:
Since upgrading from SA3.0 to SA 3.1, I get messages on my system
console saying:
spamd[xx]: mkdir /nonexist
Nicholas Payne-Roberts wrote:
>
> That works perfectly!! :D I had never thought of using -path and -f
find /home/vpopmail/domains -path "*/.Junk E-mail/cur/*" -type f -exec rm {}
\;
Actually, the "-type f" is probably unnecessary since there should not
be any directories or special files in the
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I doubt it'd have quite the performance gains that A-C can
offer, Regexp::Assemble certainly sounds like something worth
trying...
the coderef trick, in particular, is very nifty.
It can work well. After reading about it here, I tried it on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> While I doubt it'd have quite the performance gains that A-C can
> offer, Regexp::Assemble certainly sounds like something worth
> trying...
> the coderef trick, in particular, is very nifty.
It can work well. After reading about it here, I tried it on one of
my pro
That works perfectly!! :D I had never thought of using -path and -f
Thank you very much for your kind help :)
Nick
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Nicholas Payne-Roberts wrote:
I think my problem is with the usage of the rm command. Even when i
execute it on its own (not within find) it fails to delet
Jack Gostl wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Take it slow with me, spamassassin has been running so well for so
> long that I haven't had to fiddle with it in ages and I don't
> remember the details. Do I add these rules to my user_prefs? Or to my
> /etc/mail/local.cf files?
Just drop the ne
Nicholas Payne-Roberts wrote:
> I think my problem is with the usage of the rm command. Even when i
> execute it on its own (not within find) it fails to delete the file:
>
> rm -f /home/vpopmail/domains/domain.com/nick/Maildir/.Junk
> E-mail/cur/*
>
> Executes with no error and fails to delete
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, hansje2000 wrote:
> But when i start spamassassin like redhat 9.0 does, he goes to a other
> direction
It's been too long for me to remember, but I think the file to start
spamd, /etc/init.d/spamassassin, needed a change in in the path somewhere,
like loading the options or f
Hi all,
I'm trying to load per-user spamassassin rules that are stored in ldap.
My spamassassin .cf file loads tries to load the data like this:
user_scores_dsn
ldap://calf/dc=bsfbh,dc=com?internalSpamassassinConfig?sub?uid=__USERNAME__
user_scores_ldap_username
uid=spamassassin,ou=system,dc=mana
ah right, excellent, i shall have a play with this and tailor it to my
setup, thanks Dave.
DAve wrote:
Nicholas Payne-Roberts wrote:
I think my problem is with the usage of the rm command. Even when i
execute it on its own (not within find) it fails to delete the file:
rm -f /home/vpopmail/d
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Tom Brown wrote:
> to install a fresh new system today with RH9 is just plain dumb.
>
> sorry to be blunt!
>
I vigorously disagree. It's a lot more work, more down-time, more
problems, more chances for security errors to install an new OS when RH9
is working.
And to top it
On 12 Jul 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Paul Dudley wrote:
> >>
> >> > If we decide to reject low grade spam messages rather than
> >> > quarantine them, is it possible to add text to the body of the
> >> > rejection message?
> >>
> >> Rejecting (bouncing) spam is utter
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/07/2006 02:16:49 PM:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Paul Dudley wrote:
> >
> > > If we decide to reject low grade spam messages rather than
> > > quarantine them, is it possible to add text to the body of
Thanks for the response.
Take it slow with me, spamassassin has been running so well for so long that
I haven't had to fiddle with it in ages and I don't remember the details. Do
I add these rules to my user_prefs? Or to my /etc/mail/local.cf files?
- Original Message -
From: "Steven
hansje2000 wrote:
> Hello,
> Im working in rethad 9.0 and try to install spamassassin in a good way
>
> I have found thate the install of spamassassin version 3.1.3 isnt not
> thate easy as it looks.
> When i start spamd in consolle like #pamd -u spambucket he referer to
> the perl cofig.(no probl
I think my problem is with the usage of the rm command. Even when i
execute it on its own (not within find) it fails to delete the file:
rm -f /home/vpopmail/domains/domain.com/nick/Maildir/.Junk E-mail/cur/*
Executes with no error and fails to delete the contents of the
directory. Could this
hi David --
While I doubt it'd have quite the performance gains that A-C can offer,
Regexp::Assemble certainly sounds like something worth trying...
the coderef trick, in particular, is very nifty.
--j.
David Landgren writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > There's an interesting discussion on my we
Alexander Piavka wrote:
>
> What is the difference between the check_rbl* and check_uridnsbl*
> tests. They seem to be made for the same purpose?
They are similar, but not the same.
check_rbl is for checking MTA IP addresses found in the mail headers.
check_uridnsbl is for checking URLs found
nope, that didn't have any effect either :(
I've tried with -v option but that doesn't show me anything else going
on either.
Thanks for your suggestions though Sietse.
Sietse van Zanen wrote:
Just a thought, try escapeing the *
find /home/vpopmail/domains -name ".Junk E-mail" -exec rm -f {}
Jack Gostl wrote:
> I'm running SpamAssassin version 3.0.3 running on Perl version 5.8.2
> under AIX 5.3. Starting a few months ago, I have been absolutely
> inundated with "image only spam". I've gone from catching 99% of the
> spam with almost no false positives to less than 85%. I asked about
Jack Gostl wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin version 3.0.3 running on Perl version 5.8.2
under AIX 5.3. Starting a few months ago, I have been absolutely
inundated with "image only spam". I've gone from catching 99% of the
spam with almost no false positives to less than 85%. I asked about thi
I'm running SpamAssassin version 3.0.3 running on Perl version 5.8.2 under
AIX 5.3. Starting a few months ago, I have been absolutely inundated with
"image only spam". I've gone from catching 99% of the spam with almost no
false positives to less than 85%. I asked about this awhile ago, and t
I thought that was what you wanted.
Otherwise I would expect the original command with * to be working well in
removing the files in the ../cur directory. What's going wrong with that than?
-Sietse
From: Nicholas Payne-Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
That deleted all of the cur directory within the .Junk E-mail directory.
Sietse van Zanen wrote:
Loose the * and do rm -rf (recursively deletes the directory)
-Sietse
From: Nicholas Payne-Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 12-Jul-06 14:24
To: users@
Loose the * and do rm -rf (recursively deletes the directory)
-Sietse
From: Nicholas Payne-Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 12-Jul-06 14:24
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spam script
I am now trying to figure out how to use find in a si
I am now trying to figure out how to use find in a similar way to tidy
up those Junk E-mail directories by deleting them after they have been
used to learn from. This is what i've tried, but the rm command doesn't
seem to like working with files within the /cur directory...
find /home/vpopmail
Yes, it's indeed better to smoke a blunt... :-p
From: Tom Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 12-Jul-06 13:24
To: hansje2000
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problems on rethad 9.0
> Nope thats no asolution redhat Fedore works in the same w
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Paul Dudley wrote:
> >>
> >> > If we decide to reject low grade spam messages rather than
> >> > quarantine them, is it possible to add text to the body of the
> >> > rejection message?
> >>
> >> Rejecting (bouncing) spam is utterly pointless, as 99% of it will
have
>
Nope thats no asolution redhat Fedore works in the same way.
to install a fresh new system today with RH9 is just plain dumb.
sorry to be blunt!
It's either upgrade, or if you're lucky Dag Wieers' packages still work for
your old system:
http://dag.wieers.com/packages/spamassassin/
-Sietse
From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 12-Jul-06 12:06
To: hansje2000
Cc: users@spamassassin
I'm having a problem with sa-learn (version 3.1). Here's a snipit of the
debug output:
---begin--
[787] dbg: locker: safe_lock:
created /home/dcorbin/.spamassassin/bayes.lock.trombone.787
[787] dbg: locker: safe_lock: trying to get lock
on /home/dcorbin/.spamassassin/bayes with
Hi!
Nope thats no asolution redhat Fedore works in the same way.
You have much more problems if you run ReDHat 9. RH9 is not supported
anymore. Especially if you setup new things now, install a OS from this
era first please.
Thanks,
Raymond.
Spamassassin works pretty great for me, but some spammers keep
upgrading. Some of my clients are still getting stupid spams thru
I think this was discussed before how do I catch spam with mangled urls.
Sorry if this is a repeat
Something like
--
visit
http://somespammmersite.
Hi All,
Has anyone of you successfully been able to,
1.run masscheck SA implemented on *MS Windows*?
2. run nightly masscheck (corpus-nightly script) on SA implemented on *MS
Windows*?
Thanks in advance,
Haren.
Nope thats no asolution redhat Fedore works in the same way.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Problems-on-rethad-9.0-tf1929957.html#a5285929
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
Im working in rethad 9.0 and try to install spamassassin in a good way
why redhat 9?
How can i fix this problem?
use a more upto date OS ??
Hello,
Im working in rethad 9.0 and try to install spamassassin in a good way
I have found thate the install of spamassassin version 3.1.3 isnt not thate
easy as it looks.
When i start spamd in consolle like #pamd -u spambucket he referer to the
perl cofig.(no problem on thate, and works fine, se
Hi,
My SA server will run on it's on and relay back the email to the specific
server once it's has done the scanning. Basically, my SA server doesn't have
the email account, it will only scan the email and deliver it.
So the problem is, how to i set the user pref base on domain level?The entry
f
Hi,
You are probably editting the wrong local.cf file then.
Try a spamassassin -D --lint to see where it gets it's config form.
And of course read the docs.
-Sietse
From: tomcatf14 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 12-Jul-06 7:48
To: users@spamassassin.apa
I think you'll need to take those info out of you smtp/MTA logs
We do similar here using an AWK script which goes on to tally ham/spam
and various other stats.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:38:22 -0700 (PDT), Pezhman Lali
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>hi
>in my /var/log/maillog, foreach spam checking, th
71 matches
Mail list logo
