Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 03:35 +0200, Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: > This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, > but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: > > I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded > in pdf and then rar'ed. > > And i'd sti

Re: Stuff getting through

2007-07-23 Thread Gene Heskett
On Monday 23 July 2007, David Baron wrote: >>I mean the obvious stuff like "viagra" and such. Usually the spam is caught >>but sporadically it does get through. >> >>What is happening. > >Simply, there are no X-Spam headers on these (and none or some of the "ham" > as well). In other words, message

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: > >This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, > >but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: > > > >I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded > >in pdf and then rar'ed. > > > >And i'd still like to meet the person

Re: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> > which MTA are you using? The clamav plugin should reject the e-mail the > > same way SA plugin does that (with much less CPU time spent) On 22.07.07 15:32, Robert - eLists wrote: > Uhlar ... and I thought that spelling my surname in capitals would preserver from this title ... :) > I use qma

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Robert Schetterer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb: >> Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: >>> This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, >>> but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: >>> >>> I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd file

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Robert Schetterer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Schetterer schrieb: > Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb: >>> Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: I'm really excited whats go

Re: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:08:47 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > which MTA are you using? The clamav plugin should reject the e-mail the >> > same way SA plugin does that (with much less CPU time spent) > >On 22.07.07 15:32, Robert - eLists wrote: >> Uhlar > >... and I th

Re: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> >On 22.07.07 15:32, Robert - eLists wrote: > >> I use qmail-scanner-queue.pl, clamav, spamassassin and qmail > >> > >> I can reject spam over a certain scoring threshold this way, yet I have not > >> figured out a way to just reject email based upon having a virus signature > >> per clamav. > O

Attaching the spam message

2007-07-23 Thread Yousef Raffah
Hello, I have spamassassin configured and running fine with postfix, amavisd-new and clamav. However, I would like to have spamassassin attach the spam message and report it to my recipient when I receive a spam message. I think it is the same message that appears when you: spamassassin -tD < ma

Re: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:32:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >On 22.07.07 15:32, Robert - eLists wrote: >> >> I use qmail-scanner-queue.pl, clamav, spamassassin and qmail >> >> >> >> I can reject spam over a certain scoring threshold this way, yet I have >> >> not >>

Re: Stuff getting through

2007-07-23 Thread David Baron
On Monday 23 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 23 July 2007, David Baron wrote: > >>I mean the obvious stuff like "viagra" and such. Usually the spam is > >> caught but sporadically it does get through. > >> > >>What is happening. > > > >Simply, there are no X-Spam headers on these (and no

Apply specific SA rulesets per domain

2007-07-23 Thread smeevil
Hello all, I was wondering if any of you know if the following is possible : It would be nice to tell SA to use certain rule sets or exclude certain rulesets depending on the domain a mail is sent to. If at all possible , then a MySQL based list to tell which rules to use for a domain would be

Re: Attaching the spam message

2007-07-23 Thread Wolfgang Zeikat
On 07/23/07 11:56, Yousef Raffah wrote: Hello, I have spamassassin configured and running fine with postfix, amavisd-new and clamav. However, I would like to have spamassassin attach the spam message and report it to my recipient when I receive a spam message. AFAIK, with amavisd-new, you n

Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
Here is what I found out: You only need the DKIM SpamAssassin plugin activated (you don't need the DomainKeys plugin) BUT, you need BOTH Mail-DKIM (> .20) perl AND Mail-DomainKkeys perl functions loaded. I suppose the SA DKIM plugin works for both. (I am not sure that was clear on INSTALL) Than

RE: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:21 AM > To: Michael Scheidell > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins > > > Looking at the messages, apparently verizon re-arranges the > message h

Re: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:32:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >however according to his informations, his qmail queue scanner rejects the > >mail if it's spam, but not if it's virus (which is sick and a bug imho) On 23.07.07 10:59, Nigel Frankcom wrote: > Ahh - it's n

RE: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:03 AM > To: Hendrik Helmvoigt > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Now its zip attachments ^^ > > 1) Spammers just want to exasperate the smaller spam filter > provider

RE: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:27 AM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV > plugin experiences > > On 23.07.07 10:59, Nigel Frankcom wrote: > > Ahh -

Re: Attaching the spam message

2007-07-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 23.07.07 12:56, Yousef Raffah wrote: > I have spamassassin configured and running fine with postfix, > amavisd-new and clamav. However, I would like to have spamassassin > attach the spam message and report it to my recipient when I receive a > spam message. I think it is the same message that a

Delivering [Spam] to the .Spam Folder

2007-07-23 Thread signetring
I am using Spamassassin 3.1.8 which is the most recent available of the 3.1.x series to Gentoo users. Using qmail, vpopmail, and qmail-scanner to invoke spamassassin. I am using verbose spamassassin mode, and am trying to get mails tagged with rewrite_subject [Spam] to be auto-delivered to the M

Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Bill Landry
Michael Scheidell wrote: > Here is what I found out: > > You only need the DKIM SpamAssassin plugin activated (you don't need the > DomainKeys plugin) BUT, you need BOTH Mail-DKIM (> .20) perl AND > Mail-DomainKkeys perl functions loaded. > I suppose the SA DKIM plugin works for both. > > (I am

Upgrade problem from 3.1.7 to 3.2.1

2007-07-23 Thread Balzi Andrea
Hi In to my smtp-relay (debian dabsed) I've installed spamassassin from debian-package and after upgrade it by the follow command: /usr/bin/cpan Mail::SpamAssassin Now when I trying to upgrade spamassassin v3.1.7 to v3.2.1 with the same command I saw the following messages: t/spamc_optC

Re: Upgrade problem from 3.1.7 to 3.2.1

2007-07-23 Thread Daniel J McDonald
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 14:58 +0200, Balzi Andrea wrote: > Hi > > In to my smtp-relay (debian dabsed) I've installed spamassassin from > debian-package and after upgrade it by the follow command: > > /usr/bin/cpan Mail::SpamAssassin > > Now when I trying to upgrade spamassassin v3.1.7 to v3.2.1 wi

Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Matt Kettler
Michael Scheidell wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:21 AM >> To: Michael Scheidell >> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins >> >> >> Looking at the messages, apparently veriz

Re: Upgrade problem from 3.1.7 to 3.2.1

2007-07-23 Thread Matt Kettler
Balzi Andrea wrote: > Hi > > In to my smtp-relay (debian dabsed) I've installed spamassassin from > debian-package and after upgrade it by the follow command: > > /usr/bin/cpan Mail::SpamAssassin > > Now when I trying to upgrade spamassassin v3.1.7 to v3.2.1 with the same > command I saw the follow

Re: Attaching the spam message

2007-07-23 Thread Matt Kettler
Yousef Raffah wrote: > Hello, > > I have spamassassin configured and running fine with postfix, > amavisd-new and clamav. However, I would like to have spamassassin > attach the spam message and report it to my recipient when I receive a > spam message. I think it is the same message that appears w

RE: Upgrade problem from 3.1.7 to 3.2.1

2007-07-23 Thread Thomas Raef
Is there an ETA for 3.2.2 yet? -Original Message- From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:08 AM To: Balzi Andrea Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Upgrade problem from 3.1.7 to 3.2.1 Balzi Andrea wrote: > Hi > > In to my smtp-relay (debian

Re: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Shane Williams
There are a number of qmail specific programs that use clamav other than qmail-scanner (which, based on a quick skim of their page, doesn't seem to support SMTP-time rejection). The ClamAV website has several alternatives, a couple of which appear to do SMTP-time rejection, listed at http://www.c

Re: Apply specific SA rulesets per domain

2007-07-23 Thread Matthew Yette
>>> On 7/23/2007 at 6:38 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, smeevil <[EMAIL >>> PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello all, I was wondering if any of you know if the following is possible : It would be nice to tell SA to use certain rule sets or exclude certain rulesets depending on the domain a mail is sen

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Rudd
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote: As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which only leaves them being useful for attacks of one form or another. some people just want, s

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Dave Pooser
> "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across > ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, > there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do > another way. In fact, nobody _NEEDS_ email, because we could just FTP text files

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Jerry Glomph Black
I would start by banning Outlook along with attachments. Why stop there, ban -all- Microsoft products from the internet. Next, I would ban smoking, unhealthy foods, and moronic neo-cons. Come on, this is Earth we are talking about. The whole point of SpamAssassin is to attempt to make ordinary

Suddenly getting terse reports and don't know why.

2007-07-23 Thread Robert Nicholson
Why would I be all of a sudden getting a terse report in the body of my messages? This is with 3.2.0

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Jim Maul
John Rudd wrote: Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote: As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which only leaves them being useful for attacks of one form or another. some p

Re: Stuff getting through

2007-07-23 Thread Gene Heskett
On Monday 23 July 2007, David Baron wrote: >On Monday 23 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote: >> On Monday 23 July 2007, David Baron wrote: [...] >> Humm, with my lashup here that Joanne helped me setup, S78spamassassin >> starts a few copies of spamd, and fetchmail is started much later in >> S99local.

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Gene Heskett
On Monday 23 July 2007, Jerry Glomph Black wrote: >I would start by banning Outlook along with attachments. >Why stop there, ban -all- Microsoft products from the internet. > >Next, I would ban smoking, unhealthy foods, and moronic neo-cons. > >Come on, this is Earth we are talking about. > >The wh

RE: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Thomas Raef
Wait, would that ban on smoking include cigars too? Are regular neo-cons okay? Please delete. -Original Message- From: Jerry Glomph Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 10:32 AM To: John Rudd Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Now its zip attachments ^

disable use of ~/.spamassassin

2007-07-23 Thread George Georgalis
Hi, I'm trying to disable spamassassin (spamd) attempts to use ~/.spamassassin all configurations are in cf files. I invoking with: exec spamd --nouser-config --username=qmaild -m ${MAX} --syslog=stderr 2>&1 and config includes: use_bayes 0 auto-whitelist 0 use_auto_whitelist 0 Yet my logs st

Re: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread Robot Terror
On 7/20/07 12:55 PM, "Skip Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ostensibly wrote: > If I send an email to a valid > address, I find it a bit offensive that they send a challenge back. Why is > it my responsibility as the sender to teach another system to accept mail > from me? Why is it my responsibility

Re: R: Any mailbox-challenge plugin?

2007-07-23 Thread Steven Kurylo
and isn't considered to be that much better than C/R (it doesn't clutter a forged-sender's mail box, but it can bog down a forged-sender's mail server with verification requests). Well, it may be. I know, however, that a lot of people is doing this at the MTA level in order to reject mail

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Scully
I have to mention how pleased we are with the sanesecurity clamav tool. We have always used spamassassin with many custom rule sets, dcc and rbls, with clamd for virus scanning. We have been getting a large number (~4,500 per day) of these PDF and other attachment spams making it through SA, even

Re: DNS Perl Help? [ot]

2007-07-23 Thread Steve Bertrand
> OK - Thanks for your help on that one, Still need the DNS stuff figured > out, That's the last piece in what will be an extrodinarilly powerful > whitelisting system. I'll publish the code once it is tested. I think a > lot of people will want to use it and improve it. Using Net::DNS, here is a

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Per Jessen
John Rudd wrote: > "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come > across > ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, > there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do > another way. That is very similar to saying that a person doe

cf for GIFs

2007-07-23 Thread Jean-Paul Natola
Hi all, I had to rebuild my machine and , although I have the 70_ rules, and have run sa-update, I think I'm missing the CF that catches the gif image spam- the pharmacy specials Can someone tell me which one that was TIA Jean-Paul Natola Network Administrator Information Technology F

Re: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread John D. Hardin
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Robot Terror wrote: > Why is it my responsibility as a holder of a valid email address > to accept mail from anyone who wants to send me the mail? Who ever said *that*? -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic

Routing messages marked as [Spam] to Maildir/.Spam

2007-07-23 Thread Signet List Account
I apologize if this is a duplicate. I posted the original using Nabble, but there was an error message and not sure if it went through or not. Here goes: I am using Qmail-Scanner 1.25 and Spamassassin 3.1.8 which is the most recent available of the 3.1.x series to Gentoo users. Using qmail, v

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Chr. v. Stuckrad
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: >... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last > week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines > every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the > messages not hitting SA it pr

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Matthias Keller
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: ... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the message

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread David B Funk
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: > > >... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last > > week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines > > every attachment anyway it is no additional loa

Force autolearn=ham for manual whitelist

2007-07-23 Thread dalchri
Hello, I completed configuring all my network tests and the bayes database has passed 200 ham messages and is being used. The bayes database has been accumulating knowledge so far through autolearn. I was concerned about how one sided the autolearning has been since over 90% of our email is spa

RE: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Robot Terror [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 4:28 PM > To: Skip Brott; spamd > Subject: Re: not everyone is happy with SA > > > On 7/20/07 12:55 PM, "Skip Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ostensibly wrote: > > > If I send an email to a val

RE: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:56 AM > To: Michael Scheidell > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins > > > Michael Scheidell wrote: > > Here is what I found out: > > >

Re: disable use of ~/.spamassassin

2007-07-23 Thread George Georgalis
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:46:58AM -0400, George Georgalis wrote: >How can I disable the use of ~/.spamassassin altogether? nevermind... --siteconfigpath=$CONF // George -- George Georgalis, information system scientist <

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Sven Schuster
hi, On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:13:22PM +0200, Matthias Keller told us: > Using amavisd-new... actually, with amavisd-new, you can treat virus names in a special way via regexes, so that it doesn't get recognized as a virus, but instead you can add extra points to the spamassassin score. This fea

Re: Stuff getting through

2007-07-23 Thread Kris Deugau
David Baron wrote: Problem is that the S78 will start spamassassin but that start does not necessarily get a valid rule-set. This is the bit puzzling me: Why must sa-update complete sucessfully for spamd to start? The default SA rules should be shipped in the package, and be placed in (typi

Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins

2007-07-23 Thread Bill Landry
Michael Scheidell wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:56 AM >> To: Michael Scheidell >> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Solved: Was: DKIM vs DomainKeys plugins >> >> >> Michael Scheidell wrote: >>> H

Re: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread Robot Terror
The ridiculousness of that sentiment that prompted my first post to this list came from the following comments: > I have found this whole line of debate somewhat interesting, but it has > clearly strayed from the real core question: > > Who is responsible? > > Is it the responsibility of the se

Re: Suddenly getting terse reports and don't know why.

2007-07-23 Thread Matt Kettler
Robert Nicholson wrote: > Why would I be all of a sudden getting a terse report in the body of > my messages? > > This is with 3.2.0 Were you getting a fuller report before? or none at all? Has anyone changed your "report" options in your config to use _REPORT_ instead of _SUMMARY_? Are you actu

Re: Force autolearn=ham for manual whitelist

2007-07-23 Thread Matt Kettler
dalchri wrote: > Hello, > > I completed configuring all my network tests and the bayes database has > passed 200 ham messages and is being used. The bayes database has been > accumulating knowledge so far through autolearn. > > I was concerned about how one sided the autolearning has been since ov

Re: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread Robot Terror
"Knowing I have CR"? Hah! I have Greylisting and SA. That's it. Oh, I also block Spamhaus.org's DROP list net blocks. Other than that, nothing. I just resent being told I have the "burden" of verifying senders, regardless of the context. You wanna send a message to me? Prove yourself worthy. (Not

Re: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread John D. Hardin
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Robot Terror wrote: > It is to that ³absolute standard² of recipient is responsible to > verify sender that I made my reply. Okay, but that is vastly different from: > "[it is] my responsibility as a holder of a valid email address > to accept mail from anyone who wants to s

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Rudd
Per Jessen wrote: John Rudd wrote: "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do another way. That is very similar to saying that

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Rudd
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: ... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the messages n

Re: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread John Rudd
Robot Terror wrote: On 7/20/07 12:55 PM, "Skip Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ostensibly wrote: If I send an email to a valid address, I find it a bit offensive that they send a challenge back. Why is it my responsibility as the sender to teach another system to accept mail from me? Why is it my

Re: disable use of ~/.spamassassin

2007-07-23 Thread Matt Kettler
George Georgalis wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:46:58AM -0400, George Georgalis wrote: > >> How can I disable the use of ~/.spamassassin altogether? >> > > nevermind... > > --siteconfigpath=$CONF Actually, that over-rides the site config, which would normally be /etc/mail/spamassassin

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote: As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which only leaves them being useful for attacks of one for

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
From: "Dave Pooser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do another way. In fact, nobody _NEEDS_ email,

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
You mean my not smoking and never have smoked status gets me drummed out of the neo-con corps? What will those who know me and think I am somewhere off to the right of would be astonished. But then my friends on the right figure I am quite "squishy" as a "conservative." Ah well. I grew up outside

uol.com.br is back, getting thru my procmail rules too.

2007-07-23 Thread Gene Heskett
Greetings; It looks like uol dot com dot br is back. I just added two more procmail rules to /dev/null that crap before it ever gets to SA. Has anyone else been getting it today?, he's hitting most of the linux mailing lists again. Can't someone send them a box of Alfreds Finest? -- Cheers,

Re: not everyone is happy with SA

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Robot Terror wrote: Why is it my responsibility as a holder of a valid email address to accept mail from anyone who wants to send me the mail? Who ever said *that*? Anyone who holds to the snail mail analogy certainly would.

Please remove "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from the list

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
He is bouncing emails. (See attachment.) Scroom and the camel he rode in on. {`,'} --- Begin Message --- The original message was received at Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:30:06 -0400 from localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED

graphic spam

2007-07-23 Thread Spamassassin List
Hi, Other than FuzzyOCR, is there other way to filter graphic spams? I had ImageInfo but seem like it is not working. regards LC

Re: Please remove "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from the list

2007-07-23 Thread Spamassassin List
He is bouncing emails. (See attachment.) Scroom and the camel he rode in on. I am getting the same thing

RE: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Robert - eLists
Nigel SA integrated via qmail-scanner-queue.pl allows smtp rejection based upon score thresholds - rh

RE: migrating from clamav before mta to SA ClamAV plugin experiences

2007-07-23 Thread Robert - eLists
> > what does clamav checking in that scanner do then? It should call > clamdscan > asap (before SA) and when a virus is found, the mail should be imediately > rejected, the same way it's rejected when SA tells so. > Matus It quarantines and notifies admin via email. Real PAIN If you read the

Re: Please remove "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from the list

2007-07-23 Thread Theo Van Dinter
removed On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 07:59:41PM -0700, jdow wrote: > He is bouncing emails. (See attachment.) > > Scroom and the camel he rode in on. > > {`,'} > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:31:06 -0400 > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Returned ma

Re: Please remove "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from the list

2007-07-23 Thread Gene Heskett
On Monday 23 July 2007, jdow wrote: >He is bouncing emails. (See attachment.) > >Scroom and the camel he rode in on. > >{`,'} not the same jerk that's bugging me, and the camel?, that's the camel that rode in on him... -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soa

sa-update error

2007-07-23 Thread Zbigniew Szalbot
Hello, I'd be glad for your suggestions re sa-update error. $ sa-update can't resolve "l27.0.0.1" to address at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/Net/DNS/Resolver/Base.pm line 751. I think the issue started when I switched from my ISP DNS server to using my own caching name server at lo

Re: graphic spam

2007-07-23 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:04:23 +0800, "Spamassassin List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi, > >Other than FuzzyOCR, is there other way to filter graphic spams? I had >ImageInfo but seem like it is not working. > >regards >LC ClamD with http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/ work pretty well here. Be sure

Re: graphic spam

2007-07-23 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:04:23 +0800, "Spamassassin List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi, > >Other than FuzzyOCR, is there other way to filter graphic spams? I had >ImageInfo but seem like it is not working. > >regards >LC PS... also check out ImageInfo.pm http://www.rulesemporium.com/plugins.h

Re: sa-update error

2007-07-23 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: Hello, I'd be glad for your suggestions re sa-update error. $ sa-update can't resolve "l27.0.0.1" to address at L27.0.0.1 isn't quite the same as 127.0.0.1. Daryl /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/Net/DNS/Resolver/Base.pm line 751. I think the issue starte