night duke wrote:
> Hi i have updated my spamassassin to version 3.2.3 but at the log mail
> appears errors.I have updated by perl -M CPAN -e shell
> perl install Mail::SpamAssassin
>
>
> Does anyone know a way to fix this?
Well, my first concern is it looks like you're not running 3.2.3.. or a
Hi,
Has there even been work/consideration to convert HTML _as it is
rendered_ into plain-text such that it can then be scanned using
non-html rules? For example, using 'w3m -dump' in linux (although using
this would probably be too slow).
Just curious since we've received some 'job' spam us
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> is it trained with enough of spams and hams?
>
Yes. I've got the defaults of 200 hams and 200 spams required, and as you
can see from the -D output, I've got 2655 spams and 786 hams that it
currently knows about in the ss1 user's bayes data files.
--
View th
Zeuxi Gau wrote:
hello,
i would like to get some infos about spamassassin.
problem:
version 3.1.7 SpamAssassin with Fedora Core 2
I got SA to work fine, but i would like the mails detected as spam to
be forwarded to a special email address instead of the current mailbox.
--- .proc
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
I have some addresses that are forwarded to different machines, so they do
not belong to real user on my system.
I would like to process mail for such users as if it belongs to one special
user which I created for this reason, to allow BAYES filter to take e
ram wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 10:50 +0200, mouss wrote:
But if his DNS points to your server and you dont host DNS for him, his
domain will not get resolved. I could easily check for such domains
then.
well. they can also hack a machine and use its real hostname. Note that
owned ma
While this is a procmail issue, not one for SA - assuming you want to dump
it to a mailbox on the same system here is my basic procmailrc recipe:
:0fwhb
| /usr/bin/spamc -u mail
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
:0H
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
/var/spool/mail/spammailbox
--
Basicall
Steve Freegard writes:
> Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> > On 9/5/2007 5:27 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> I have to say that the idea of having a blacklist of name servers used
> >> by spammers is interesting. Something to investigate.
> >>
> > one, and its a good one, is already in use :-)
> >
> > uri
Hi,
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 9/5/2007 5:27 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
mouss wrote:
ram wrote:
I am using SA 3.2.3 and very few spam get thru
But I can still see some spam with urls because the the urls are not
yet
listed in uribls
I tried to do some analysis on my quarantine, I found atlea
That should work if that procmail recipe is run AFTER SpamAssassin.
Might be a good question to post to a group for your MTA if no one
here is able to provide a definite answer, as this really isn't a
SpamAssassin question per se.
Evan
At 10:04 AM 9/5/2007, Zeuxi Gau wrote:
hello,
i would
hello,
i would like to get some infos about spamassassin.
problem:
version 3.1.7 SpamAssassin with Fedora Core 2
I got SA to work fine, but i would like the mails detected as spam to
be forwarded to a special email address instead of the current mailbox.
--- .procmailrc ---
On 05.09.07 08:28, RinkWorks wrote:
> Subject: Bayesian filtering not kicking in, but it's trained.
is it trained with enough of spams and hams?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na
Peter Mikeska (MiKi) wrote:
here are my 2 cents ;)
I'm not Joe, but I have to disagree with some of your points.
no word about MTA, from other answers its look like sendmail.
for high volume and this kind of things there is something fast and
relatively easy ;)
Umm... no. Switching MTAs
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 01:22:15 -0500 (CDT)
Dave Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Raquel wrote:
>
> >>
> > bayes_path /usr/spamassassin/bayes
> > bayes_file_mode 0777
>
> OK, is the directory "/usr/spamassassin" writable by the user-ID
> that you are running spamd as? What happe
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 01:22:15 -0500 (CDT)
Dave Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Raquel wrote:
>
> >>
> > bayes_path /usr/spamassassin/bayes
> > bayes_file_mode 0777
>
> OK, is the directory "/usr/spamassassin" writable by the user-ID
> that you are running spamd as? What happe
On 9/5/2007 5:27 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
mouss wrote:
ram wrote:
I am using SA 3.2.3 and very few spam get thru
But I can still see some spam with urls because the the urls are not yet
listed in uribls
I tried to do some analysis on my quarantine, I found atleast some
spammer domains have the
I'm trying to run Spam Assassin 3.1.7 as root on a Linux machine (Debian
Etch, Perl 5.8.8), with individual user Bayes databases. Everything seems
to be working except that I'm getting no BAYES_* scores for anything. So,
when reading mail for the 'ss1' user (which is me), I see lots of
SpamAssas
mouss wrote:
ram wrote:
I am using SA 3.2.3 and very few spam get thru
But I can still see some spam with urls because the the urls are not yet
listed in uribls
I tried to do some analysis on my quarantine, I found atleast some
spammer domains have the same NS records.
Now in my spamassassin c
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 15:10 +0530, ram wrote:
> I just upgraded my spamassassin from 3.1.5 to 3.2.3
> But I can see that the shortcircuit rules are notworking
>
> I created a simple text rule and put it in a short circuit rule with a
> high priority
>
>
> header ECM_DOMWHITELIST X--ID =~/
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 10:50 +0200, mouss wrote:
> ram wrote:
> > I am using SA 3.2.3 and very few spam get thru
> > But I can still see some spam with urls because the the urls are not yet
> > listed in uribls
> >
> > I tried to do some analysis on my quarantine, I found atleast some
> > spammer d
ram wrote:
I just upgraded my spamassassin from 3.1.5 to 3.2.3
But I can see that the shortcircuit rules are notworking
I created a simple text rule and put it in a short circuit rule with a
high priority
header ECM_DOMWHITELIST X--ID =~/XX/
describe ECM_DOMWHITELIST Whitelisted sender
Hello Joe,
here are my 2 cents ;)
Sunday, September 2, 2007, 9:28:55 PM, you wrote:
> Hello,
> I maintain a large webmail host (I bet you can figure out which one) for
> free/paid accounts that sends out tens of thousands of emails a day. We're
> not quite Yahoo Mail or Hotmail, but we're prett
Hello,
I have some addresses that are forwarded to different machines, so they do
not belong to real user on my system.
I would like to process mail for such users as if it belongs to one special
user which I created for this reason, to allow BAYES filter to take effect
for them.
Can I achieve t
On 04.09.07 16:26, Dan Fulbright wrote:
> Thank you for the replies, however, I think I'll restate my own
> question. Why are there so many rules that seem to check for the same
> thing?
I can't fully answer that, however HELO string is not reverse DNS.
> I'm seeing this more and more often. xo.n
ram wrote:
I am using SA 3.2.3 and very few spam get thru
But I can still see some spam with urls because the the urls are not yet
listed in uribls
I tried to do some analysis on my quarantine, I found atleast some
spammer domains have the same NS records.
Now in my spamassassin can I do a
That's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.
I get the impression that I looked into this some years back and it
wasn't possible to do this, thus my question.
Thanks again
OliverScott wrote:
You already can - try this in your local.cf:
rewrite_header Subject SPAM [_STARS(X)_]
This
That's very helpful! Thanks. Now I don't have to go through all the
docs to figure this out. =)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
mutt supports spam tags, I use this setup:
set imap_headers="X-Spam-Status"
spam "X-Spam-Status: (Yes|No), score=(-?[0-9]+\.[0-9])" "%2"
spam "X-Spam-Status: (Ye
27 matches
Mail list logo
