I'm looking to have Spamassassin mark messages where the from address is
forged with a valid local address.
For instance, if a local address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a spammer spoofs that,
then it initially appears as though [EMAIL PROTECTED] is sending an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (which is
Bill Minton wrote:
I'm looking to have Spamassassin mark messages where the from address
is forged with a valid local address.
For instance, if a local address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
and a spammer spoofs that, then it initially appears as though
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure.
header __LOCAL_SENDER From =~ /@example\.com/i
meta FORGED_LOCAL_SENDER __LOCAL_SENDER !TRUSTED_NETWORKS
score FORGED_LOCAL_SENDER 1
This depends on a proper setting of TRUSTED_NETWORKS.
(Note: untested code, YMMV, etc.)
Chris St. Pierre
Unix Systems Administrator
Nebraska
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Then /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin isn't a good place for .local.cf
and SARES rules either .),
I'd say SA's local.cf and other manually edited configuration
files are typical for files in /usr/local/etc.
The SARE rules doesn't fit that bad in /usr/local/etc as
hi
i try to configure my spam assassin but i have one question
what is RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 BODY ?
thanks
David
I was wondering how to reset bayes for spamassassin. We have had a lot
of spam start coming through the past few weeks and I want to flush out the
bayes in my directory then try it for the shared bayes.
I'm on spamassassin-3.1.3-1.
thanks
Dean
Now getting loads of FuzzyOcr failed to execute pamditherbw.
I have ppmtopgm but no pamtopnm and no pamthreshold.
I have netpbm 2.10.0-11 from Debian Sid. So I commented out the missing stuff
in FuzzyOcr.scansets, but in FuzzyOcr.preps, this was an either or
situfation.
I do have a ppmdither.
sa-learn --clear
Make sure you have a ham/spam pile ready to re-train your db's after
clearing.
-Original Message-
From: Dean Clapper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:12 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: reset spam bayes
I was wondering how to reset
Well, I got it working (started a thread like this one month ago or so)
thanks to some other users contributions.
What I did (following someone elses instructions) was insert these lines in
local.cf:
code
bayes_ignore_header ReSent-Date
bayes_ignore_header ReSent-From
bayes_ignore_header
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:50:58AM -0300, David fire wrote:
i try to configure my spam assassin but i have one question
what is RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 BODY ?
It means that Razor2 gave the message a spam confidence (cf) rating
between 51 and 100.
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
There are two
A legitimate e-mail passed through my system yesterday that matched three stock
rules with default scores:
1.9 RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME
1.4 RATWARE_MS_HASH
2.2 MSGID_DOLLARS
Because this is a legitimate e-mail from a legitimate server, does that mean
these particular stock rules need a score
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through. Where bayes used to be the
centerpiece of spam filtering now I have turned it off to increase accuracy.
Hi,
My Bayes is just as accurate as it has always been.
Any false negatives usually all have BAYES_99 in them, they just don't
have enough other rule hits to raise the overall score above the threshold.
Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through.
So is there
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:06:51AM -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Is it scoring the whitelist lower or is it just not hitting?
Can you post your whitelist rule and the headers from an example
message?
Hi, Apologies for delay I did not see this message. I am still having
issues with this so your
Somebody
knows what this rule does?
ONE_TIME
___
Yahoo! Mail - Sempre a melhor opção para você!
Experimente já e veja as novidades.
http://br.yahoo.com/mailbeta/tudonovo/
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Kris Deugau wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
I've never trusted automatic learning. Why let your Bayes database be
(even partially) under the control of a third party, particularly
when that third party is the attacker?
Because there's no other (practical and/or
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through.
So is there actually any
At 10:22 AM 3/22/2007, Deivid Vilela wrote:
Somebody knows what this rule does?
ONE_TIME
# grep ONE_T *
20_phrases.cf:body ONE_TIME /\bone\W+time
(?:charge|investment|offer|promotion)/i
20_phrases.cf:describe ONE_TIME One Time Rip Off
Evan
I'm looking at rebuilding our mail gateway due to new hardware (and to
learn).
The plan at the moment is probably Redhat/CentOS/Fedora (mostly for rpm
availability) plus Postfix plus Spamassassin.
The box will be an in/out relay server and will accept mail for a few
domains and pass most of it
Dear Friend
I can read the CF Files but i don't understand it.
I hope that some one can help me trying to explain abou what realy this
rule does. :-)
Evan Platt escreveu:
At 10:22 AM 3/22/2007, Deivid Vilela wrote:
Somebody knows what this rule does?
ONE_TIME
# grep ONE_T *
At 10:39 AM 3/22/2007, Deivid Vilela wrote:
Dear Friend
I can read the CF Files but i don't understand it.
I hope that some one can help me trying to explain abou what realy
this rule does. :-)
Evan Platt escreveu:
At 10:22 AM 3/22/2007, Deivid Vilela wrote:
Somebody knows what this rule
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Where bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering ...
FWIW, I don't think Bayes has really ever been the centerpiece of
spam filtering. Definitely not within SA anyway. It's a good tool,
but it's just another tool in the belt.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 05:56:31PM +, Mark Adams wrote:
Whitelist file is in /etc/spamassassin/ and is called whitelist.cf
entry;
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is /etc/spamassassin where the rest of your site config is located? Typically
it's /etc/mail/spamassassin, but spamassassin
On 22-mrt-2007, at 20:02, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Where bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering ...
FWIW, I don't think Bayes has really ever been the centerpiece of
spam filtering. Definitely not within SA anyway.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:41:03PM -0500, maillist wrote:
I don't know about that. I'd say that 95% of all spam filtered in my
system has BAYES_99 as a trigger, and of that, probably 75% - 85% would
not have been caught if not for that trigger.
Don't confuse filtering methods with rules.
-Messaggio originale-
Da: --[ UxBoD ]-- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using a combination of numerous SA rules, bayes, FuzzyOCR and BotNet on
a new server Ive just built we are trashing the SPAM. Attached graph
is for today :-
What does received mean in the graph?
Giampaolo
Mark Adams wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:06:51AM -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Is it scoring the whitelist lower or is it just not hitting?
Can you post your whitelist rule and the headers from an example
message?
Hi, Apologies for delay I did not see this message. I am still having
SpamAssassin 3.2.0-rc1 is released!
This is a *prerelease* for SpamAssassin 3.2.0; not the full release.
SpamAssassin is a mail filter which uses advanced statistical and
heuristic tests to identify spam (also known as unsolicited bulk email).
Highlights of the release
-
I was wondering the same thing, idly. Then one day my Bayes stopped
working and I went from 30-40 spams getting through in a day to 500-600
getting through. Believe me, I think Bayes is doing a decent job of
adding to the scores of spammy messages...
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with
On 3/22/07, Kris Deugau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone using SA in an ISP environment will run into this problem;
I agree here, I am using SA in an ISP and I have disabled Bayes. There
is no way I can get regular good supply of ham from our customers. No
one want's to forward their good mails
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through. Where bayes used to be the
centerpiece of spam
32 matches
Mail list logo
