They have a nice feedback link :->
http://www.accessintel.com/feedback.htm
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:00:52 -0800, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Friday 21 July 2006 21:42, John D. Hardin wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, John Andersen wrote:
>> > On Friday 21 July 2006 18:03, John D. Har
On Friday 21 July 2006 21:42, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, John Andersen wrote:
> > On Friday 21 July 2006 18:03, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > > The folks over at accessintel (the server bouncing list traffic) don't
> > > seem to know what they are doing.
> > >
> > > I got a bounce and
> -Original Message-
> From: John D. Hardin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 1:43 AM
> To: John Andersen
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Delivery failure notification (fwd)
>
> Well, yeah, but does that prevent them from defining
> "postmaster"
On Jul 21, 2006, at 10:51 PM, jdow wrote:
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 18:03, John D. Hardin wrote:
> The folks over at accessintel (the server bouncing list traffic)
don't
> seem to know what they are doing.
>
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 18:03, John D. Hardin wrote:
> The folks over at accessintel (the server bouncing list traffic) don't
> seem to know what they are doing.
>
> I got a bounce and tried to let them know ab
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, John Andersen wrote:
> On Friday 21 July 2006 18:03, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > The folks over at accessintel (the server bouncing list traffic) don't
> > seem to know what they are doing.
> >
> > I got a bounce and tried to let them know about it, and got the below
> > in retu
Ah - spamming the list this way, I suspect.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin Users List"
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 19:03
Subject: Delivery failure notification (fwd)
The folks over at accessintel (the server bouncing list traf
On Friday 21 July 2006 18:03, John D. Hardin wrote:
> The folks over at accessintel (the server bouncing list traffic) don't
> seem to know what they are doing.
>
> I got a bounce and tried to let them know about it, and got the below
> in return.
>
> I hope the listadmins unsub them.
Its a micros
The folks over at accessintel (the server bouncing list traffic) don't
seem to know what they are doing.
I got a bounce and tried to let them know about it, and got the below
in return.
I hope the listadmins unsub them.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The o
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:28, John Andersen wrote:
Replying to myself...
It looks upon further inspection that this guy is the problem. He
seems to be routing mail back to the list or something:
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:49:49 -0400
--
_
On Friday 21 July 2006 14:01, jdow wrote:
> Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
>
> It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
> list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
> had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct o
On 7/21/06 at 3:04 PM Evan Platt wrote:
>At 03:01 PM 7/21/2006, you wrote:
>>Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
>>
>>It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
>>list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
>>had the system's spamassa
From: "Evan Platt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 03:01 PM 7/21/2006, you wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filt
At 03:01 PM 7/21/2006, you wrote:
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct output of
sa-sta
Hey guys, the Apache email system is hosed.
It has bounced two recent emails, one because it supposedly already had
list headers on it, which as it went out of here it did not. The other
had the system's spamassassin filter barfing on the direct output of
sa-stats.pl which included several BAYES
Obantec Support wrote:
Hi
is they anything i need to watch out for or can i just stop SA and build the
newer version.
i am thinking of bayes database files. (not using Mysql).
i have read the upgrade file but just want to cross the i's and dot the t's
before jumping in.
Mark
Nothing intere
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> SA email admin?
>
> Wondering why SA mailing list isn't using SRS or something.
Really, who does. Besides SRS would be the wrong solution for a simple
mailing list.
> Any mailing list subscriber who sends to the list could get their email
> bounced at another list
Um.. mailscanner doesn't use spamd...
in your last message, you said you're using mailscanner.
Might be a good idea to ask all of this on the mailscanner list.
(see www.mailscanner.info )
On Jul 21, 2006, at 12:23, Golden, James wrote:
I have a little more information. I figured out I coul
Hi all,
OK a little more info I discovered. From the Book on MailScanner, I found that when using Mailscanner with sendmail you have to run it as root. Thus spamd is also called root. I also checked the Mailscanner.conf file for the spamassassin settings and found that Auto whitelist was
From: "Duane Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also ran
sa-update.
I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with turning off
bayes, it is still being used. I have searched the system over and have
only found local.cf contained with
I have a little more information. I figured out I could get ps to tell me what the process is running as. It looks to be running as a daemon, and is running as root. I didn't think it was supposed to be run this way. Even so, shouldn't the prior command have reset the AWL score then?
# ps
Thanks for that! I kinda was heading in that direction. Now at the risk of sounding really stupid. How can I figure that out? I know we are running MailScanner, and spamassassin is setup through MailScanner to scan the mail.
Thanks for the answers. You are great!
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at
SA email admin?
Wondering why SA mailing list isn't using SRS or something.
Any mailing list subscriber who sends to the list could get their email
bounced at another list subscriber's if that list subscriber uses
HARDFAIL bounces and the list user has -all type spf records.
Orig
jdow wrote:
From: "Rick van Vliet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Rick van Vliet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello. New to the list, I have a question that I hope isn't "too
newbie".
Running SA 3.1.2 with a qmail server for a small (50) group of users.
Vpopmail handling virtuals, and pro
"Golden, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 07/21/2006 10:07:33 AM:
> Hi all,
>
> I just took over the administration of spamassassin, since my
> coworker moved on. I'm not really familiar with a lot of this.
The
> problem I am having is this:
>
> A user has a legitimatly high AWL score (be
On Friday 21 July 2006 16:07, Golden, James wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just took over the administration of spamassassin, since my coworker
> moved on. I'm not really familiar with a lot of this. The problem I am
> having is this:
>
> A user has a legitimatly high AWL score (because of rules determin
Hi all,
I just took over the administration of spamassassin, since my coworker moved on. I'm not really familiar with a lot of this. The problem I am having is this:
A user has a legitimatly high AWL score (because of rules determined by management). Now they want the user to be "reset".
Hi
is they anything i need to watch out for or can i just stop SA and build the
newer version.
i am thinking of bayes database files. (not using Mysql).
i have read the upgrade file but just want to cross the i's and dot the t's
before jumping in.
Mark
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 01:16:01PM +, Duane Hill wrote:
local.cf.sample I would have found it. And, now that I think about it. I
do remember seeing a number of messages posted to this list that did state
the default is moved to /usr/local/etc/mail
Hi,
I try to integrate SA with Messaging Server.
I need to load white/black lists from LDAP.
In debug output from spamd I have:
ldap: entering handle_user_ldap(nobody)
config: load_scoreonly_ldap(nobody)
ldap: URL is
ldap://192.168.90.116:2389/ou=People,o=eranet.pl,o=eranet.pl?spamassassin?sub?u
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 01:16:01PM +, Duane Hill wrote:
> local.cf.sample I would have found it. And, now that I think about it. I
> do remember seeing a number of messages posted to this list that did state
> the default is moved to /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin upon running
> sa-update.
Thanks Rob,
Have you run mass-check / nighty mass-check in it successfully, by any chance?
Thanks,
Haren.
At 07:20 PM 7/21/2006, Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
> Haren Kodagoda asked:
> Has any one implemented SA 3.1.2 or 3 on MS Windows (win32)?
> If so are they stable on win32?
Yes.
> Haren Kodagoda asked:
> Has any one implemented SA 3.1.2 or 3 on MS Windows (win32)?
> If so are they stable on win32?
Yes.
1st of all, there as been an "emulation mode" version out for a long time. But
just last month someone ported it to "native" win32 code:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~epivova
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Jim Maul wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also ran
sa-update.
I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with turning off
bayes, it is still being used.
Jim Maul wrote:
> Duane Hill wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > > Duane Hill wrote:
> > > > I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also
> > > > ran sa-update.
> > > >
> > > > I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with
> > > > turning off
Duane Hill wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also ran
sa-update.
I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with turning off
bayes, it is still being used. I have searched the system over and
ha
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also ran
sa-update.
I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with turning off
bayes, it is still being used. I have searched the system over and
have only found local
Duane Hill wrote:
> I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also ran
> sa-update.
>
> I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with turning off
> bayes, it is still being used. I have searched the system over and
> have only found local.cf contained within /etc/mail/sp
Dear All,
Has any one implemented SA 3.1.2 or 3 on MS Windows (win32)?
If so are they stable on win32?
Thanks in advance,
Haren.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ramprasad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 4:16 AM
> To: spamassassin-users
> Subject: Rule for mail contains bad email ids
>
>
> There are now a few spams passing thru with plain emailids (
> not mailto links )
>
> There is noting e
I recently upgraded SA to v3.1.3 on FreeBSD 6.0. I have also ran
sa-update.
I have found that no matter what I do to the local.cf with turning off
bayes, it is still being used. I have searched the system over and have
only found local.cf contained within /etc/mail/spamassassin.
Any ideas?
On Thursday 20 July 2006 23:49, John Andersen wrote:
> Setting my procmailrc script to call spamassassin directly instead
> of spamc cause my razor logs to indicate razor is being hit.
Doh!
Yast still sets spamd to run with the -L flag.
I knew I'd seen this before...
--
There are now a few spams passing thru with plain emailids ( not mailto
links )
There is noting else in the mail that can be caught. How can I check
such ids
Show I do a body check after all
Thanks
Ram
Sample spam mail
---
I have a new email address!
You can now email me
I've been looking for any indication that Razor hit on any spam I've received.
Grepping /var/log/mail, I never see that razor has ever shown up in the list
of tests per the spamd output.
I have Razor 2.82 installed, registered and tested. If I hand feed it spam it
properly indicates a spam stat
46 matches
Mail list logo
