On Sunday 06 August 2006 16:30, kalin mintchev wrote:
hi all...
last week we had a power outage and our mail sever went down with it. the
spamd performance has been disappointing ever since. crap like Re:
veaooVzlAGRA is passing through without a hitch. here is what spamd added
to the
On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
| 2250 0733.com
Here are my numbers from last week:
5006 0451.com
3845 53.com
Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal server:
440733.com
340451.com
110668.com
4 023.com
2 08.com
2 020.com
1
Hello,my conf is:postfix-2.3.2spamd 3.1.4blacklist_from in sql.The problem is that spamd delivers message even when the senderis on blacklist_from - in logs i see - user_in_blacklist.
Any idea ?best regradsDaniel
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:21:41 +0100, Duncan Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
| 2250 0733.com
Here are my numbers from last week:
5006 0451.com
3845 53.com
Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal server:
440733.com
From: Daniel Chojecki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
my conf is:
postfix-2.3.2
spamd 3.1.4
blacklist_from in sql.
The problem is that spamd delivers message even when the sender
is on blacklist_from - in logs i see - user_in_blacklist.
Any idea ?
All is normal. SpamAssassin NEVER fails to
Horked Bayes database?
It would be easier to fire up CPAN and install the latest than to
try and figure it out. You are back level 2 or 4 releases.
ok. i'll be doing it. but we are using vpopmail with individual
preferences for every user. does that mean that every single user has to
start
Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains would be like caring
about the 'legitimate' claims of Bush saying he is a true christian...
-Sietse
From: Nigel Frankcom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 07-Aug-06 11:32
To:
jdow wrote:
All is normal. SpamAssassin NEVER fails to deliver email. It simply
marks it as spam. It is the job of whatever called SpamAssassin to
parse the return and filter as you wish.
I'd say it ALWAYS fails to deliver email, since it doesn't do that. ;)
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote:
Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains would be like
caring about the 'legitimate' claims of Bush saying he is a true
christian...
All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for
people to deal with than
* Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for
people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is
China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric
domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than Yahoo
It would be easier to fire up CPAN and install the latest than to
try and figure it out. You are back level 2 or 4 releases.
If you previously installed from a distro of some kind you should probably
upgrade using the newer distro rather than CPAN directly; otherwise you can
end up with
OK than let's put this in another 'political' context:
Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from those domains would be like caring
for the few 'legitimate' bombs dropped over Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon.
It would indeed be better to have no bombs at all
-Sietse
I have a US customer with a numeric domain.
Not sure why they did that (boy, did it muck up Microsoft NT!)
Funny thing, when the spammers starting dictionary attacks, they do it
in alphabetic order, so numeric domains get hit with spam first also.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote:
OK than let's put this in another 'political' context:
Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from those domains would be like
caring for the few 'legitimate' bombs dropped over Iraq, Afghanistan or
Lebanon.
It would indeed be better to have no
Hi,
I just did a major from 3.0.4 to 3.1.3. I am having some issue with
the upgrade. When I start spamd I see the following error in my mail
log.
Aug 7 07:32:02 magi spamd[14114]: config: failed to parse line, skipping: W
Aug 7 07:32:02 magi spamd[14114]: config: failed to parse line,
and not only them according to our daily sendmail logs:
# egrep '@[0-9]+\.com' YESTERDAY | sed -e 's/^.*@//' -e 's/.*$//' |
sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head
2484 0733.com
2449 0451.com
100 072.com
66 1039.com
52 006.com
51 0668.com
40 004.com
37 163.com
18 126.com
15 mail.0451.com
On 8/7/2006 12:25 AM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:07:58AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Anybody written a rule that tests for empty text/plain, preferably only
when a non-empty text/html or some other media-type is provided?
Sounds very similar to MPART_ALT_DIFF.
That
As Imentioned to someone (perhaps you) the error checking has improved and
previously erroneous stuff is getting caught and flagged.
Aug 7 07:32:02 magi spamd[14114]: config: failed to parse line, skipping:
W
You seem to have an uncommented W somewhere in a config file.
Aug 7 07:32:02
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan Hill wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
| 2250 0733.com
Here are my numbers from last week:
5006 0451.com 3845 53.com
Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal
server: 440733.com 34
- Original Message -
From: Hamish Marson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Duncan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: 0451.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan Hill wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006
On Monday 07 August 2006 15:20, Obantec Support wrote:
What would 192.com or 118118.com do without these names?
Deal with the fact that the RFCs don't support such names, and petition for a
new RFC that accomodates their names?
Other businesses have had no issues adapting to the requirements
Good morning,
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and SURBL.
I did a test,
host -tTXT test.uribl.com.multi.uribl.com
and got the proper response. I also ran
spamassassin -D testemail.txt
which is a message with a URI known in the URIBL list and it provided
the
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:00:59AM -0400, Chuck Payne wrote:
Aug 7 07:32:02 magi spamd[14114]: config: failed to parse line, skipping: W
Aug 7 07:32:02 magi spamd[14114]: config: failed to parse line,
skipping: bayes_use_chi2_combining 1
W isn't a valid config line, and the chi2 business is
Hi,
I'm planning to test the OCR module in SA very soon.
I was wondering if other (commercial) anti-spam products already have a OCR
module built-in?
Thx
F.
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:11:14AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote:
What's the most efficient way to grab the text/plain part?
Check out the other code/plugins. Getting to a specific message part
is pretty easy.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit,
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
purely numberic domains are illegal.
No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were illegal they would never have been
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
purely numberic domains are illegal.
No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were
DAve wrote:
Good morning,
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and SURBL.
I did a test,
host -tTXT test.uribl.com.multi.uribl.com
and got the proper response. I also ran
spamassassin -D testemail.txt
which is a message with a URI known in the URIBL list and it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
...
I should have included this in the debug output.
[23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[23441] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.57
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
today we received a non-recognized spam mail which contained only
plaintext + an email address to write to.
The email was [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I wanted to see if uribl maybe
lists the domain.
The command
hostx -t TXT
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 05:37:37PM +0200, decoder wrote:
Maybe uribl could be changed to also check mail addresses, too?
FWIW, I thought there was an older one, but a quick search didn't turn
it up, so here's the new one:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5014
--
Randomly
Maybe uribl could be changed to also check mail addresses, too?
Chris,
SURBL and URIBL are not intended to be used for checking against the domains of
e-mail addresses, even when the e-mail is contained within the body of the
message.
In spite of that, I did used to do this... but I
DAve wrote:
DAve wrote:
Good morning,
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
host -tTXT test.uribl.com.multi.uribl.com
and got the proper response. I also ran
spamassassin -D testemail.txt
which is a message with a URI known in the URIBL
Perhaps sometime someone can take Joe's data and
create a web site like URIBL were people can report
e-mail addresses found in scam spam to create a more
comprehensive list with faster turnaround?
Oh... I forget... a previous round of discussions about this killed off this
idea because there is
Richard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
...
I should have included this in the debug output.
[23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[23441] dbg: dns: Net::DNS
I'm using MySQL and getting this error:
bayes: database version is different than what we understand ???
What does this mean?
Aug 7 18:04:30 d_baron spamd[28549]: bayes: write failed to Bayes
journal /home/david/.spamassassin/bayes_journal (0 of 3624)!
Getting numerous messages of this form. Things seem to be working normally!
(Note that sa-update failed this morning due to problems at the site.)
Also these:
Aug 7
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:28:12PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
Aug 7 18:04:30 d_baron spamd[28549]: bayes: write failed to Bayes
journal /home/david/.spamassassin/bayes_journal (0 of 3624)!
Getting numerous messages of this form. Things seem to be working normally!
Aug 7 18:03:38 d_baron
Aug 7 18:04:30 d_baron spamd[28549]: bayes: write failed to Bayes
journal /home/david/.spamassassin/bayes_journal (0 of 3624)!
Getting numerous messages of this form. Things seem to be working normally!
(Note that sa-update failed this morning due to problems at the site.)
Hello all...
Running SpamAssassin 3.1.3 on a OS/X box. Running sa-update gives
Can't locate LWP/UserAgent.pm in @INC. Can't recall if I've ever
tried sa-update before.
Googling doesn't give much help, and a locate of UserAgent.pm finds
nothing on my system.
Thanks.
Evan
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:52:50AM -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
Running SpamAssassin 3.1.3 on a OS/X box. Running sa-update gives
Can't locate LWP/UserAgent.pm in @INC. Can't recall if I've ever
tried sa-update before.
Googling doesn't give much help, and a locate of UserAgent.pm finds
DAve wrote:
Richard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
...
I should have included this in the debug output.
[23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[23441] dbg: dns:
On Monday 07 August 2006 21:34, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:28:12PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
Aug 7 18:04:30 d_baron spamd[28549]: bayes: write failed to Bayes
journal /home/david/.spamassassin/bayes_journal (0 of 3624)!
Getting numerous messages of this form.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
purely numberic domains are illegal.
Should this be worth a point or so in the base ruleset?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
purely numberic domains are illegal.
No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they
-Original Message-
From: Evan Platt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:53 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: sa-update gives Can't locate LWP/UserAgent.pm in @INC ?
Had the same problem on Fedora Core 5. I had to install these additional
packages.
Hello all. Mostly a lurker here. I am trying to install the imageinfo
plugin. So, i followed the instructions, place *.pm file in Plugins
dir and *.cf file in Spamassassin dir. Do a spamassassin --lint and get
[6870] warn: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate
Mail/SpamA
| I am sure it has to do with the dir structure. We use oes-linux and the
| dir structure on it is /etc/mail/spamassassin. So i am asking in what
| file do i change the path from /mail/spamassassin to
| /etc/mail/spamassassin. I have searched through the 2 files (*.pm and
| *.cf and can not find
DAve wrote:
DAve wrote:
Richard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
...
I should have included this in the debug output.
[23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
Anyone know what would cause this? I ran sa-learn --force-expire
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/SQL.pm
line 132.
Use of uninitialized value in numeric ne (!=) at
On Monday 07 August 2006 16:09, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
purely numberic domains are illegal.
No! Wrong! Totally wrong!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello there,
I have improved the original OcrPlugin (found at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OcrPlugin), so it contains fuzzy
matching. Like that, mistakes made by the OCR recognition or
intentional obfuscations in the text don't make the
On Monday 07 August 2006 03:32, Loren Wilton wrote:
If you previously installed from a distro of some kind you should probably
upgrade using the newer distro rather than CPAN directly; otherwise you can
end up with mucked up installations since some distros move things around.
The problem with
decoder wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello there,
I have improved the original OcrPlugin (found at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OcrPlugin), so it contains fuzzy
matching. Like that, mistakes made by the OCR recognition or
intentional obfuscations in the text
seems to work... but i never see a score about 1.00.
the docs say the default score is 4. did i miss something?
above 1.00 i meant.
From: uNiXpSyChO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
decoder wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello there,
I have improved the original OcrPlugin (found at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OcrPlugin), so it contains fuzzy
matching. Like that, mistakes made by the OCR recognition or
I looked at the list of required modules and noticed after I've been running
it for awhile that I didn't have these two installed:
9109] dbg: diag: module not installed: Net::Ident ('require' failed)
9109] dbg: diag: module not installed: IO::Socket::INET6 ('require' failed)
I tried installing
Hey all!
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
James
It seems the latest version of these isn't spam?Are there any rules to mark MS attachments as SPAM? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Latest Network Upgrade Date: August 5, 2006 9:55:10 PM CDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Dcc: : grub.camros.com 1113; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, James Lay wrote:
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
I'm running 3.1.3 with a bunch of SARE and local rules on my hosted
From: James Lay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey all!
Anyone happen to know the memory requirements of SpamAssassin? I have
3.0.4 running on 128 Megs okwill upgrading to 3.1.4 plus the SARE
rules tank it? Or am I safe? Thanks all!
Perhaps.
Do not run anything else with a significant memory
From: Robert Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems the latest version of these isn't spam?
Are there any rules to mark MS attachments as SPAM?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Latest Network Upgrade
Date: August 5, 2006 9:55:10 PM CDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Dcc: :
I had similar problems on CentOS 32 64; I ended up installing the
Net::Ident with yum instead (off the dag repo), that worked ok...
yum install perl-Net-Ident.noarch
The INET6 can be installed the same way, though I don't think it's
critical to have it in.
HTH
Nigel
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006
63 matches
Mail list logo
