Re: Every e-mail is now getting a new score, creating a lot of false postive.

cpayne wrote: Mark Martinec wrote: Just in case, make sure the --lint passess with no complaints, e.g: # su vscan -c 'spamassassin --lint' David B Funk writes, Cannot tell for sure (I don't use amavisd) but that looks like something is broken in the way that messages are being passed int

Re: Every e-mail is now getting a new score, creating a lot of false postive.

Matthias Haegele wrote: cpayne schrieb: Matthias Haegele wrote: cpayne schrieb: Guys, I am not sure when this started but now every e-mail that comes on to my box has this score... 2.0 MISSING_SUBJECTMissing Subject: header -0.0 NO_RECEIVEDInformational: message has no

Re: Every e-mail is now getting a new score, creating a lot of false postive.

Mark Martinec wrote: Just in case, make sure the --lint passess with no complaints, e.g: # su vscan -c 'spamassassin --lint' David B Funk writes, Cannot tell for sure (I don't use amavisd) but that looks like something is broken in the way that messages are being passed into the SA engin

Re: New domains (was: URIWhois plugin)

> 2. As mentioned above the whois data is sometimes populated *after* the > domains > start appearing in spams. Remember that the whois data is still mostly batch > processed once or twice a day. Many of the TLD zone files (where the DNS > delegations actually come from) are updated in near real

Re: New domains (was: URIWhois plugin)

Quoting Jonas Eckerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > (The idea below is not mine, someone else (I'm sorry, but I > forgot who) wrote about it here (I think) before.) > > Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: > > > brand-new domains, > > Something that could work for this without the problems inherent > in using who

RE: URIWhois-0.02

Quoting Bret Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Perhaps rather than arguing about whether we'd all get blocked by running > this, it would be more productive to lobby a registrar to provide the data > in rsynch-able form to URIBL or SURBL where DNS infrastructure could be used > to make the data availa

Re: [SPAM] Thanks for your Email Address

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Sara wrote: > Just Go To The Link Given Below To See How You Can Get Everyone > Begging You To Share Your Little Secret! > > http://cloakedlink.com/jcmyhpwnzp etc. Is cloakedlink.com in the default redirectors list? -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.imps

R: R: R: R: URIWhois-0.02

> -Messaggio originale- > Da: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 settembre 2007 19.22 > > Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: > > > Well, I have to manually turn my MX server on and off, sometimes. So, > is it > > SA an automated process? And then, if SA issues a wh

reinstall Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus

Currently i have a problem after an upgrade from version 3.2.2 to version 3.2.3 If i do spamassassin --lint gives me an error. spamassassin --lint [13361] warn: rules: failed to run MIME_QP_LONG_LINE test, skipping: [13361] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_for_mime" via package "Mail::Sp

Re: R: R: R: URIWhois-0.02

Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: Well, I have to manually turn my MX server on and off, sometimes. So, is it SA an automated process? And then, if SA issues a whois request, is it automated? This is plain silliness, which leads me to believe that you very well know that you're doing automated queri

Re: Milter vs. Procmail

Olivier Nicole wrote: But here is the question, with milter call, how to manage things like per user whitelist? As SA is run only once for all the recipients, it should go on a common set of rules. To get a milter to process settings per-user on a message with multiple recipients, you'll have

R: New domains (was: URIWhois plugin)

> -Messaggio originale- > Da: Jonas Eckerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 settembre 2007 18.17 > A: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Oggetto: New domains (was: URIWhois plugin) > > (The idea below is not mine, someone else (I'm sorry, but I > forgot who) wrote about it he

R: URIWhois-0.02

> -Messaggio originale- > Da: Bret Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 settembre 2007 17.16 > > Perhaps rather than arguing about whether we'd all get blocked by > running > this, it would be more productive to lobby a registrar to provide the > data > in rsynch-able for

R: R: R: URIWhois-0.02

> -Messaggio originale- > Da: Kris Deugau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 settembre 2007 18.14 > > Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: > >> -Messaggio originale- > >> Da: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> It appears that you selectively missed the part that a

New domains (was: URIWhois plugin)

(The idea below is not mine, someone else (I'm sorry, but I forgot who) wrote about it here (I think) before.) Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: brand-new domains, Something that could work for this without the problems inherent in using whois or registry databases is to simply check how long ago

Re: R: R: URIWhois-0.02

Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: -Messaggio originale- Da: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] It appears that you selectively missed the part that applies: "You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a)

Re: Bayes innodb problems

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Henrik Krohns wrote: > mysql> SELECT count(*) FROM bayes_token WHERE id = '1' AND (1190870335 - > atime) > 345600; > +--+ > | count(*) | > +--+ > | 1710591 | > +--+ > 1 row in set (5.69 sec) > > mysql> SELECT count(*) FROM bayes_token WHERE id = '1'

RE: URIWhois-0.02

Perhaps rather than arguing about whether we'd all get blocked by running this, it would be more productive to lobby a registrar to provide the data in rsynch-able form to URIBL or SURBL where DNS infrastructure could be used to make the data available for such a use. Maybe none will cooperate, may

RE: looking into spamassassin mail proxy solution

> Subject: RE: looking into spamassassin mail proxy solution > > > Thanks, > Knowing what to search for helps. > The first document I started reading has an installation where spam is > filtered to a specific user 'spammy'. I hope that there is a way to just > tag the spam in the header and let th

Re[2]: Discarding RBL-Mails, forwarding others

Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 12:12:13 PM, you wrote: m> then you should say what exactly you want to achieve. we could spend a month at guess games. I think I said all you have to know - the one missing was just the "domain dependent" thing. >> Additionally, this rejects RBL listed mails - but

R: URIWhois-0.02

> -Messaggio originale- > Da: Starckjohann, Ove [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 settembre 2007 14.14 > > lint gives: > > [2431] warn: plugin: failed to parse plugin > /etc/spamassassin/URIWhois.pm: Can't locate > URIWhois/WhoisProcessor/Domain.pm in @INC (@INC contains: li

R: Async timeouts in SA

> -Messaggio originale- > Da: Mark Martinec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 settembre 2007 13.58 > A: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Cc: Giampaolo Tomassoni > Oggetto: Re: Async timeouts in SA > > Giampaolo, > > > > how to "catch" timeouts from outstanding asynchronous >

AW: URIWhois-0.02

lint gives: [2431] warn: plugin: failed to parse plugin /etc/spamassassin/URIWhois.pm: Can't locate URIWhois/WhoisProcessor/Domain.pm in @INC (@INC contains: lib /usr/share/perl5 /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.8 /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.8 /usr/share/perl/5.

Re: Async timeouts in SA

Giampaolo, > > how to "catch" timeouts from outstanding asynchronous > > queries in SA 3.2.3. Justin Mason writes: > could you open an enhancement request? there should be a callback > function that we call on the $obj hash, "timeout_callback" maybe. > > Until that's implemented, see the code f

Re: Async timeouts in SA

Giampaolo Tomassoni writes: > Hi Justin, > > sorry for bothering you so "straightly", but I would like to know how to > "catch" timeouts from outstanding asynchronous queries in SA 3.2.3. hi Giampaolo -- could you open an enhancement request? there should be a callback function that we call on

Re: Bayes innodb problems

Micah Anderson schrieb am 27.09.2007 02:20: processing has ground down to really slow. I'm seeing some incredibly long queries now in my slow-query log, such as: Try an "optimize table " for each of the sa tables. You just filled the database from scratch, so perhaps the counters/statistics d

Re: Bayes innodb problems

> > >> >> SELECT count(*) > > >> >>FROM bayes_token > > >> >> WHERE id = '4' > > >> >> AND ('1190846660' - atime) > '345600'; > > >> > Who the hell wrote *that* query? Is MySQL smart enough to rearrange > > >> > that equation to give an indexable compar

Re: unsubscribe

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:59:26 +0400, "Livitin Sergey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >unsubscribe list-unsubscribe:

unsubscribe

unsubscribe

Re: Milter vs. Procmail

> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Raquel wrote: > > > I have a question. Is there any advantage to using say, > > > Spamass-Milter over calling spamc from procmail? > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:50:13 -0700 (PPT) > "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Using a milter allows you to reject the message

Re: Milter vs. Procmail

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Olivier Nicole wrote: > > But here is the question, with milter call, how to manage things like > > per user whitelist? As SA is run only once for all the recipients, it > > should go on a common set of rules. On 27.09.07 00:23, David B Funk wrote: > In the general case, wit

Re: R: R: URIWhois-0.02

Quoting Giampaolo Tomassoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think there is a lot of people in this list who runs a small business like > mine, and who may benefit from using the URIWhois plugin with no negative > consequences. The others, well, they have influence and resources to spend > in a "centraliz