I just got information from the open suse group where I can get
3.2.3.11, I have update my spamassassin, and I am not getting those ugly
errors, but I am still getting this one, which was drive me crazy before...
2.5 FM_NO_FROM_OR_TO FM_NO_FROM_OR_TO
-0.0 NO_RECEIVED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
I've gotten at least 20 spams which I see are listed in dnswl.org as
low trust (which still merits -1.0).
All different IP addresses or some specific
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:16:49PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
I've gotten at least 20 spams which I see are listed in dnswl.org as low
trust (which still merits -1.0).
Umm, did you
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I cannot help but comment on this post.
Neither can I.
I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
(along with several others) for the purpose of asking questions of
you experts out there because I do not fully understand how it is
working. By
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
I forwarded over 200 of them earlier today (as an attachment -- total
email size was about one meg).
It would have been from this address.
-Dan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
dnswl.org is
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:48:49AM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:16:49PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
My point was more along the lines of the fact that there's no method
(other than manual notification) of doing Active Correction. DNSWL is
a cool idea, but could we also come up with some sort of reporting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
I forwarded over 200 of them earlier today (as an attachment -- total
email size was about one meg).
OK, I now could have a look at them (well, a sample of them, not each of
the 200 individually).
All samples
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
I forwarded over 200 of them earlier today (as an attachment -- total
email size was about one meg).
OK, I now could have a look at them (well, a sample of them, not each of
the 200 individually).
All samples in that set have been forwarded through
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
Livejournal's purely a mail forwarding service (i.e. there's no way to
POP/IMAP that account)
As far as I know, there are mails originating from LJ itself (eg
notifications etc)?
and if they can't effect
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
Livejournal's purely a mail forwarding service (i.e. there's no way to
POP/IMAP that account)
As far as I know, there are mails originating from LJ itself (eg
Matthias Leisi schrieb am 17.10.2007 09:46:
Correct. But by setting (in your local.cf or equivalent)
| trusted_networks 204.9.177.18
you are telling SpamAssassin that this relay is not operated by a
spammer and that it should apply all black-/whitelist rules etc. to the
IP address one more
Dan Mahoney, System Admin writes:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Matthias Leisi wrote:
On my end, I have degrees of control (false MXes, Blacklists,
whitelists, greylists, sender callbacks, etc). I have no such control
over the LJ MX'es.
Correct. But by setting (in your local.cf or equivalent)
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
Does anyone know of a way, that whenever someone
emails
from say, for example, Nigeria, Korea, Russia and
China, the email either gets deleted by Spamassassin
*or* returned to them, saying
something like, Email failed, no such email
address please ?
Any
Hi all,
debian testing
spamassassin 3.2.1
exim4-deamon-heavy 4.67
At present I have a huge amount of rule files loaded on to a system that
does not process alot of mail (including sa-blacklist). This works fine
the majority of the time but falls over as soon as someone at the office
sends a
Why is my Spamassassin is reporting xxx%40 comcast. net as
URI 40 comcast. com? (without the spaces)
Thanks.
Jim
-
Jim Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UUism Networks http://www.UUism.net
Ministering to the Needs of Online UUs
Web Hosting, Email Services, Mailing Lists
-
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:38 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
I've gotten at least 20 spams which I see are listed in dnswl.org as
low trust (which
Larry Nedry writes:
On 8/13/07 at 4:01 PM +0100 Justin Mason wrote:
I've been working on a new way to auto-generate body rules recently...
Are these rules restricted to Spamassassin 3.2 or newer?
The following is what I get when I dig 8.1.3.sought.rules.yerp.org. Notice
the NXDOMAIN.
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 16:46 +0530, ram wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:38 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:
dnswl.org is either full of it, or not well maintained.
I've gotten at least 20 spams which
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote:
I believe SA uses Bayes out of the box, but what I don't get is how
will Bayes know it's spam (to train on, versus ham) if there isn't
already a rule that flags it as spam somehow? I guess the RBL rules
will help.
sa-learn --spam messagefile.txt
Chris wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
Does anyone know of a way, that whenever someone
emails
from say, for example, Nigeria, Korea, Russia and
China, the email either gets deleted by Spamassassin
*or* returned to them, saying
something like, Email
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Brennan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:49 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: uribl.com implementing ACLs
No donations
IT departments managed by folks with corporate backgrounds don't even
have a
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might be
interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has now
reached being 95% of all email.
http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=5545
From the report:
* Global spam levels reached an all-time high of 95% of
Tom Ray writes:
* Blended threat messages -- or spam messages with links to
malicious URLs -- accounted for up to 8% of all global email
traffic during the peaks of various attacks during the quarter.
Spam messages with links to malicious URLs, in a traffic peak? I'd say
I would agree if using unsubscribe in the subject line to get removed
from many mailing lists weren't so common... its almost the norm, or at
least it was.
I do agree that the SA group is always helpful when how it works
questions are asked. Some have even called me long distance on their
dime
On 10/17/07, Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might be
interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has now
reached being 95% of all email.
This is hyperbole.
What it really means is that 95% of the mail processed by
My question is - Does spamassassin scan the mail for each recipient? or
does it scan only once? If it is the later I would not expect
spamassassin to fall over each time one of these mailouts is sent.
Is this due to it being in the acl of exim? does anyone have any advice
on how to avoid this?
I can confirm the 80%:
Mail stats since: Mar 9 04:02:10
Total mail scanned:11335683
Total viruses stopped: 235807
Total spam found: 9016304
Spam percentage: 79.54
:-)
cheers
maurizio
On mer, 2007-10-17 at 12:07 -0400, James E. Pratt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Schaefer
-Original Message-
From: Bart Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:58 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bit OT but it's about SPAM
On 10/17/07, Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this
I have started to run into a small problem due to some communication
internally with emails being flagged as spam. Long question made short:
How to I correctly configure SA to trust communication on our network
without trusting spoofed addresses?
- Skip
Skip wrote:
I have started to run into a small problem due to some communication
internally with emails being flagged as spam. Long question made short:
How to I correctly configure SA to trust communication on our network
without trusting spoofed addresses?
Usually you do this with a
Guess this would help:
Using sendmail 8.13.8 with SA 3.2.3
- Skip
From: Chris 'Xenon' Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usually you do this with a combination of trusted_networks
and exclusion in your scanner.
Skip wrote:
Guess this would help:
Using sendmail 8.13.8 with SA 3.2.3
- Skip
From: Chris 'Xenon' Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usually you do this with a combination of trusted_networks
and exclusion in your scanner.
You may want to look into mimedefang. It works well
-Original Message-
From: maillist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:12 PM
To: Skip
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to trust my domain?
Skip wrote:
Guess this would help:
Using sendmail 8.13.8 with SA 3.2.3
- Skip
From:
Skip wrote:
I have started to run into a small problem due to some communication
internally with emails being flagged as spam. Long question made short:
How to I correctly configure SA to trust communication on our network
without trusting spoofed addresses?
Start here:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:58:23 -0700
Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/17/07, Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might
be interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has
now reached being 95% of all email.
Hyperbole?
Well, let's take a look at the figures on my mail relay boxes, for the
last 17 days:
mx0: total 2,680,671, ham 134,313 (5% of incoming). 92% of incoming
rejected at the MTA.
Mx0: total 1,868,788, ham 110,510 (5.9% of incoming). 91% of incoming
rejected at the MTA.
Cheers,
Phil
-Original Message-
From: Raquel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:29 PM
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:58:23 -0700
Bart Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/17/07, Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this
Well, as we say here in Detroit, YMMV.
We have several customers who have Ivory status, 99.44% pure ...
spam!
The spam is out there. Be happy(ier) if you are only at 70-80% ... :-)
rnd
-Original Message-
From: Bart Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Alex Woick wrote:
Matthias Leisi schrieb am 17.10.2007 09:46:
Correct. But by setting (in your local.cf or equivalent)
| trusted_networks 204.9.177.18
you are telling SpamAssassin that this relay is not operated by a
spammer and that it should apply all black-/whitelist
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 10/17/07, Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might be
interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has now
reached being 95% of all email.
This is hyperbole.
What it really means is that 95% of the
First of all the per cent depends on how much legit mail you get.
Notice near-constant stream of spam, but different ratios:
Tuesday 10/16/2007
GARBAGE STOPPED: 3997006 (76 % of all mail (5220524))
1588777 (30 %) spam and other junk detected and rejected
2408229 (46 %) no recipients given or
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:46:04AM -0400, Tom Ray wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might be
interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has now
reached being 95% of all email.
Made me curious, so I made some stats from my own mail server, just
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, John Rudd wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 10/17/07, Tom Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might be
interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has now
reached being 95% of all email.
This is hyperbole.
-Original Message-
From: Giampaolo Tomassoni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:49 PM
To: 'Raquel'; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Bit OT but it's about SPAM
-Original Message-
From: Raquel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Rob Sterenborg wrote:
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I cannot help but comment on this post.
Neither can I.
I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
(along with several others) for the purpose of asking questions of
you experts out there because I do not fully
Hi All,
I currently have SpamAssaassin setup on my FreeBSD machine and have trained
it with spam and ham messages (greater than the min thresholds of 200/200).
However, I'm not sure it's setup correctly, nor do I see any obvious results
(reduced spam) of the training process. A couple of
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 04:27:52PM -0700, sinnerman wrote:
Hi All,
I currently have SpamAssaassin setup on my FreeBSD machine and have trained
it with spam and ham messages (greater than the min thresholds of 200/200).
However, I'm not sure it's setup correctly, nor do I see any obvious
Hi list,
I run into the same problem the administrator in the thread
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW has: Having mails being forwarded and having the SA
rules applied to the wrong mail server causing imprecise filter results.
Now I added IPs to trusted_networks and that causes another problem: The
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:16:06 +0200, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Sterenborg wrote:
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I cannot help but comment on this post.
Neither can I.
I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
(along with several others) for the purpose
Guys,
I am getting a lot mail which I know is from a mail program use by
spammers, called the bat.
I like to know how can I write a rule to give lets say two or three
points for this in the header.
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.6) Educational
Thanks for any help you can give me.
Payne
Hello Payne,
On Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 9:08:53 PM, you wrote:
c I am getting a lot mail which I know is from a mail program use by
c spammers, called the bat.
This comes up on the list from time to time.
No, The Bat is a legitimate email client (such as Outlook and
Eudora) which, like
Robert Braver wrote:
Hello Payne,
On Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 9:08:53 PM, you wrote:
c I am getting a lot mail which I know is from a mail program use by
c spammers, called the bat.
This comes up on the list from time to time.
No, The Bat is a legitimate email client (such as Outlook
Nigel, none taken on my part! It's all good.
Clay
Nigel Frankcom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/17/07 9:53 PM
So, for any that took offence from my post, again, I apologise.
cpayne wrote:
Robert Braver wrote:
Hello Payne,
On Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 9:08:53 PM, you wrote:
c I am getting a lot mail which I know is from a mail program use by
c spammers, called the bat.
Yea, I did a search. And found you are right, shame that most of the
spam I am using
I'm running spamd as:
spamd -d -l -u nobody --siteconfigpath=my site config's path
My config file is:
required_hits 4
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 1
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 8
bayes_min_ham_num 100
score BAYES_99 5
I don't have bayes_auto_learn set explicitly, but the docs
I think I've solved the issues:
* I've stoped using spamc/spamd, and now just use spamassassin (running as
my logged in user, just like sa-learn). I think that has solved the issue of
which bayesian database is being used.
* I had to explicitly load the plugin in my config file (I though it was
sinnerman wrote:
I think I've solved the issues:
* I've stoped using spamc/spamd, and now just use spamassassin (running as
my logged in user, just like sa-learn). I think that has solved the issue of
which bayesian database is being used.
Well, your spamd startup was forcing everything
sinnerman wrote:
I'm running spamd as:
spamd -d -l -u nobody --siteconfigpath=my site config's path
Is there a particular reason why you're using the --siteconfigpath?
The reason I ask is nearly everyone I've seen use this option, mis-uses
it. The only time you should want to use this
59 matches
Mail list logo
