From: "Daniel Staal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--As of September 30, 2006 12:32:41 PM -0500, Russ B. is alleged to have said:
Basically, anything that arrives over 15 in score, will have that
SPAM-STATUS header embedded, so it does NOT run SpamAssassin on this
server, and just puts it in the Caught-S
--As of September 30, 2006 12:32:41 PM -0500, Russ B. is alleged to have
said:
Basically, anything that arrives over 15 in score, will have that
SPAM-STATUS header embedded, so it does NOT run SpamAssassin on this
server, and just puts it in the Caught-Spam. If it has LOWER than a score
of 15 f
I'm not the authority on such things, but I don't believe it's possible
without some customization.
I really wanted to ask you, though, how you handle mail rejection on the
"inner" layer of mail servers? If mail gets through your front end SA box
and needs to be rejected because it's to an invali
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 21:00 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Bill Horne wrote:
> >
> > I have a "follow on" question, so I'll add it to this thread:
> >
> > Assuming that it's a good idea to feed "Caught" spams through sa-learn
> > in order to reinforce the tokens that might not have been autolearned,
At 12:32 28-09-2006, Henrik Ostergaard wrote:
This sounds promissing! But I have distributed, moving users and therefore
uses pop-before-smtp for authentication, which means that my IP list is in a
hash table, which is not in CIDR format. :-(
dk-filter and dkim-filter support pop-before-smtp.
Fix to above post's last lines:
MX server scores it as spam score 200 --> MX server just nukes it
MX server scores it as spam score 16 - MX tags it as spam --> sendmail
farm just files it in the user's \Caught-Spam folder.
MX server scores it as score 7, which is below questionable which is set
I have a unique but interesting problem:
I have a farm of servers that use Sendmail/ProcMail/SpamAssassin.
Due to their very heavy loads and my custom rules, I have built a
dual-proc-dual-core FBSD AMD64 bit OS server to do nothing but my major
spam knockdowns and processing to send back to the
S
Andreas Pettersson wrote:
In case anybody is interrested, I've compiled a config file for the
geo zone at TQM http://tqmcube.com/worldzone.php
It might not be of great use, but it is interresting to gather some
statistics of where the mails come from.
Files found here
http://anp.ath.cx/tqmcub
Jürgen Herz wrote:
What I still get and not understand is
warn: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /var/spool/exim4/.spamassa
ssin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: File exists
Make sure the file permissions hasn't changed when you ran the manual
expire.
Regards,
Andreas
Jürgen Herz wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> If your --force-expire only took 19 seconds, I would guess that you
>> are not talking to the same database. Make sure you are logged in as
>> the same user that is having the problem when you run the
>> --force-expire.
>
> Uh, that's a very good point.
On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:30 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
David Ulevitch writes:
Donald,
We handle DNSBLs but not URIBLs, at the moment. Passing along to
Noah to see what he can do. Sorry you had this happen to your
SpamAssassin scoring. (Time to check mine... :-) )
You can resolve this behavior by
David Ulevitch writes:
>> From: Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Date: Friday, September 29, 2006, 3:59:03 PM
>> Subject: Non-blocklisted embedded URLs are getting hits on
>> URIBL_AB_SURBL and URIBL_PH_SURBL in SpamAssassin 3.1.5
>>
>> ===8<==Origina
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Balzi Andrea wrote:
> -Original Message-
[...]
> > every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
> >
> > My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
> > Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
>
Balzi Andrea wrote:
> Thanks All!
>
> Now I've about 80MB for child
>
> Andrea
>
>
You're distinctly NOT welcome.
I don't help folks who outright blacklist whole ISP's with millions of
legitimate users in order to prevent a portion of spam. Particularly
when that ISP is one I'm using.
Perhaps
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 11:20 -0400, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 08:12 -0400, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
> >> Ramprasad wrote:
> >>> Why not SPF ??
> >>Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an
> >> "SPF_PASS" associated with it fr
15 matches
Mail list logo