I received from [EMAIL PROTECTED] this e-mail:
--
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
users@spamassassin.apache.org mailing list.
Messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
message I receiv
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:09PM -0500, Don Ireland wrote:
When I look at the message source, the following is among them--this is
actually from YOUR reply.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-Spam-Score: -65
X-Spam-Bar: --
In a standard config, X-Spam-Stat
> > I've actually been running this set of 5 rules on several of the ISP
> > mail systems I've got my fingers in (watch for line wrap, sorry):
> >
> > # "Nice girl" wants to send pics, but only if you email the address
> in
> > the body
> > # start scoring at .5, see how that whacks'em.
> > body NI
but I don't send "messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
have been bouncing".
What do I have to do to resolve the problem?
You misunderstand. You are signed up to receive messages from this mailing
list. The mailing list demon has attempted to send messages FROM the list
TO you.
Matt Kettler writes:
> In general I'm somewhat averse to systems with undocumented or vague
> policies in SA. Case in point, razor used to be disabled by default due
> to a rather vague policy about "high volume" use, that didn't really
> define what that volume was.
+1.
We haven't decided *n
Other guys wrote:
---
Well, what makes you think that Bayes is missing anything? SA needs to
be updated to work properly.
I keep all of the capture spam in a folder for examination. Even the
worst of the spam gives the following analysis:
Content analysis details: (17.0
(sorry my poor english)
Hi,
I have a machine with qmail+qmail-scanner+spamassassin 3.0.0. Some time ago,
I have saw that some spam are passing through filter with 0 score. Then, I
activated sa_debug='1' and sa_hdr_report='1' in qmail-scanner for see how SA
are giving the score to e-mails and I s
Matt Kettler wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:09PM -0500, Don Ireland wrote:
When I look at the message source, the following is among them--this
is actually from YOUR reply.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-Spam-Score: -65
X-Spam-Bar: --
Looks like it
(Sorry for the length, if you hate the wall of text, the last three
paragraphs contain the essence of my thoughts and concerns on this)
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> Matt Kettler writes:
> > In general I'm somewhat averse to systems with undocumented or vague
> > policies in SA
On 2/20/2008 1:01 PM, Andy Dills wrote:
This was way too long but I'm waiting on a couple buildworlds and the more
I think about this the more shady it feels to me.
wow, for someone who didnt know URIBL existed, and doesnt see any value
in it, you sure have a lot to say.
If you go to ht
If you think blacklists should be free, then you should set up your
own, spend thousands of hours per year on it, undergo constant threats
of DDOs or worse, and listen to complaints if you dare to consider
being partially paid for your work.
Jeff C.
Andy Dills wrote:
I just can't parse the logic; the seperation between those who should pay
and those who shouldn't is based on volume, yet if those who generate too
much volume wish to eliminate the traffic entirely...they must pay for the
traffic of those who do not hit the arbitrary cutoff?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Dills
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I must be stupid, I'm not able to invent an explanation that doesn't
>involve a profit motive.
I think it's very safe to assume that URIBL is not profit making and
never likely to be so.
>providing free service (in theory) t
mouss wrote:
Francesco Abeni wrote:
Good morning everyone, i'm in charge of reducing SPAM at a customer
site. Already have SPAMASSASSIN, sa-update weeklyexecuted.
I'd like to implement a "Bogus MX" for further filtering of SPAM. I
don't know if this is the correct name, by "Bogus MX" i mean s
Jeff Chan wrote:
If you think blacklists should be free, then you should set up your
own, spend thousands of hours per year on it, undergo constant threats
of DDOs or worse, and listen to complaints if you dare to consider
being partially paid for your work.
Yes!
And some need to start asking
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 2008-02-20 07:59
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time to make multi.uribl.org optional rather
> than default?
>
>
> If you think blacklists should be free, then you should set up your
> own, s
Hi all,
Nowadays, I get more and more spam that get these headers :
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
Is it normal ? How can I make these spams tested ?
Thanks.
--
Emmanuel Lesouef
DSI | CRBN
t: 0231069671
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Kevin Golding wrote:
> Seriously Andy, I understand you're annoyed about the situation and
> there is plenty of scope for discussion about SA policy, and the URIBL
> lists would probably be a more on-topic location for debates about the
> implementation, but whilst I'll happil
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell -> "Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority."
Bowie Bailey -> "I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
host as your primary
MX"
nolisting.org -> "longterm use has yet to yield a
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We do something like nolisting. You will lose legit mail no matter
which trick you use. So it's best if you have a method of fixing that.
Our first mx record is a real smtp server, it's just firewalled off to
most of the world. It's used as a fast lane for our internal
mouss wrote:
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We do something like nolisting. You will lose legit mail no matter
which trick you use. So it's best if you have a method of fixing
that. Our first mx record is a real smtp server, it's just firewalled
off to most of the world. It's used as a fast lane for
During last days I have noticed an increasing of 'rejected' messages.
I'm currently using 'zen.spamhaus.org' and 'list.dsbl.org' as reputation
servers.
At the same time, the number of false negative is growth.
I would like to know if is there any better reputation server that
anyone know (of cou
Do you think anyone has notified blogspot.com that their site is being
abused by spammers?
On Feb 19, 2008 7:27 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:08 +1300, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> > From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Wed,
Bazooka Joe wrote:
Do you think anyone has notified blogspot.com that their site is being
abused by spammers?
I have submitted urls 4 or 5 times to them. I've never heard back but
the sites did vanish pretty quickly.
You can do it here
http://help.blogger.com/?page=troubleshooter.cs&prob
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
> response):
>
> Michael Scheidell -> "Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest
> priority." Bowie Bailey -> "I would say that it is too risky to put a
> non-smtp
> host as your primary
> MX"
>
> nolisting.
Richard Frovarp wrote:
> mouss wrote:
> > Richard Frovarp wrote:
> > > >
> > > We do something like nolisting. You will lose legit mail no matter
> > > which trick you use. So it's best if you have a method of fixing
> > > that. Our first mx record is a real smtp server, it's just
> > > firewalled
Bowie Bailey wrote:
I completely agree with you. I have no idea what effect our solution
is having on spam. I know that our internal mail isn't slowed down by
large influxes of spam as they can't get to the server that processes
internal mail, which was the goal of our system. I know for a fact
>
>
> (sorry my poor english)
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a machine with qmail+qmail-scanner+spamassassin 3.0.0. Some time
> ago,
> I have saw that some spam are passing through filter with 0 score. Then, I
> activated sa_debug='1' and sa_hdr_report='1' in qmail-scanner for see how
> SA
> are giving th
Hi,
At 08:01 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
Nowadays, I get more and more spam that get these headers :
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
Is it normal ? How can I make these spams tested ?
It's not normal. Upload a sample of the spam includ
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, please bear with me on details or eticate!
I have a RHEL 2.1 Linux machine running Postfix/Amavis/SA.
SA version:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spam-email]$ sa-learn --version
SpamAssassin version 3.1.1
Perl version:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# perl -v
This is perl, v5.6.1 built
> This was way too long but I'm waiting on a couple buildworlds and the more
> I think about this the more shady it feels to me.
>
> Good luck regardless,
> ---
> Andy Dills
Andy
Think about it like this... in terms of just your immediate family or
businesses
If you are so overloaded helping ot
> but I don't send "messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
> have been bouncing".
> What do I have to do to resolve the problem?
>
> Andrea
Andrea
If you are using SA on your mail server, make sure that you whitelist all
the lists that you are subscribed to... sometimes they will b
- Original Message -
>Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
>response):
>
>Michael Scheidell -> "Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority."
>Bowie Bailey -> "I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
>host as your primary
>MX"
I can't disagr
>
> I'll defer to the wisdom of the people who invest their time and effort to
> provide the services and develop the software that the rest of us have
> come to rely on. If you guys don't have a problem with it, then that's
> good enough for me.
> ---
> Andy Dills
Andy
You are a smart person, j
Let me clarify something about using bogus MX records. Let's assume the
following.
bogus0.domain.com - MX 10
real.domain.com - MX 20
backup.domain.com MX 30
bogus1.domain.com MX 40
bogus2.domain.com MX 50
The host bogus1 and bogus2 are 100% safe and effective. The bogus IPs
can be dead on port
Anders Norrbring wrote:
Sorry, I've been missing quite a lot of this thread... Can I please get an
example of the complete ruleset, and a hint on where to place it?
That was it. I copy-pasted those rules from
/etc/mail/spamassassin/misc.cf on one of the servers I maintain;
they're just rule
Michael Hutchinson wrote:
body NICE_GIRL_01 /Hello! I am (?:bored|tired) (?:today|this
(?:afternoon|evening)|tonight)\./
Forgive my ignorance, but what does the question mark and colon do at
the start of the brackets? I have (bored|tired) in my own rules, so how
does (?:bored|tired) affec
>
> Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
> response):
>
> Michael Scheidell -> "Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority."
> Bowie Bailey -> "I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
> host as your primary
> MX"
>
> nolisting.org -> "longterm us
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, pichels wrote:
Then, when I tried to run sa-learn - none of my messages are learning?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spam-email]$ sa-learn --spam < mosconj-022008-1
Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (1 message(s) examined)
That just means that sa-learn has already learned that message
Hi John,
But, I've tried learning any email after I recieved the Perl error message
and none are being learned?
And why is the spam being scored wioth spamassassin?
I don't understand? Could my Bayes DB need to be re-synced or forced to
expire some dups or ?
My users are getting the "nice girl e
Marc Perkel wrote:
Let me clarify something about using bogus MX records. Let's assume
the following.
bogus0.domain.com - MX 10
real.domain.com - MX 20
backup.domain.com MX 30
bogus1.domain.com MX 40
bogus2.domain.com MX 50
The host bogus1 and bogus2 are 100% safe and effective. The bogus IPs
At 08:05 20-02-2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I am interested in this technique, and have been for some time. It
seems like every discussion of it leads to a group saying "you will
lose mail" and a group saying "you will not lose mail". Is there any
In my opinion, it may cause mail delivery proble
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:40:33 +0100, "Rocco Scappatura"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>During last days I have noticed an increasing of 'rejected' messages.
>
>I'm currently using 'zen.spamhaus.org' and 'list.dsbl.org' as reputation
>servers.
>
>At the same time, the number of false negative is growth
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:24:28AM -0800, pichels wrote:
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message/Node.pm line 119.
> Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (1 message(s) examined)
>
> So, I found a post that explained this was a bug and to pach the Node.pm
> file and so I patched it:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:52:14PM +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> >Anyway I heard talking about URIBL, which as I have understod is a quite
> >different service (it blacklists 'domains' rather 'IPs'). But is it
> >maybe a dangerous practice to fight spam? Anyway, does anyone suggest me
> >to use UR
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:59:58 -0500, Chris Santerre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 2008-02-20 07:59
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Time to make multi.uribl.org optional rather
>> than default?
Andy Dills wrote:
given that they openly ask
for paypal donations, have google ads, and sell branded merchandise
Which probably doesn't account for much revenue.. which is why (I think)
they *later* added the paid access.
I guess I have grown too accustomed to the long standing symbiotic
relati
> 71.920 77.1604 1.23310.984 0.710.00 URIBL_BLACK
You've always surprised me with your Ham rates Theo. I'm guessing these are
prbly good sites that fell into the "affiliate" spam category and got
listed. Anyway to pull out the top hitters of Ham and let us know. I'd like
to find ou
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, pichels wrote:
But, I've tried learning any email after I recieved the Perl error
message and none are being learned?
And why is the spam being scored wioth spamassassin?
I don't understand? Could my Bayes DB need to be re-synced or forced to
expire some dups or ?
Note th
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:41:09PM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
> > 71.920 77.1604 1.23310.984 0.710.00 URIBL_BLACK
>
> Anyway to pull out the top hitters of Ham and let us know. I'd like
> to find out if we overlooked something.
>
> I'd like to correct this if it is an issue.
F
Hi Theo,
Can I just paste the source header info of a similar spam mail here - none
are getting caught by SA?
Hope that is ok...Or did you mean something else?
(My spamasssin --lint check seems to check out)
###
Received: from mail.weirminerals.c
Every 24 hours I see the following errors and spamassassin has to be
restarted. Other machines running SA are fine.
SA 3.2.4_1
freebsd 6.2
perl5.8.8
spamd[19777]: bayes: cannot open bayes databases
/usr/local/share/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: Interrupted
system call
Greetings;
Like everybody else, I'm tired of this nice girl spam. But the only place I
can find any of those files on this F8 system is in usr/share/spamassassin.
Are those the ones to play with for system wide rules?
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
Like everybody else, I'm tired of this nice girl spam. But the only place I
can find any of those files on this F8 system is in usr/share/spamassassin.
Are those the ones to play with for system wide rules?
no, do not modify files in the "distribution" d
At 12:29 20-02-2008, Gene Heskett wrote:
Like everybody else, I'm tired of this nice girl spam. But the only place I
can find any of those files on this F8 system is in usr/share/spamassassin.
Are those the ones to play with for system wide rules?
See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Sought
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Bayes DB has been learned and in effect for a long time - years
before my time.
No ID's have changed or the config that has caused this error.
I add users to the whitelist - and use sa-learn - that's it.
ok.
0.000 0 797361
Le Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:19:06 -0800,
SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Hi,
> At 08:01 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
> >Nowadays, I get more and more spam that get these headers :
> >
> >X-Spam-Score: 0
> >X-Spam-Level:
> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
> >
> >Is it normal
At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
The message hits RDNS_NONE, HTML_MESSAGE, URIBL_WS_SURBL,
URIBL_JP_SURBL, URIBL_OB_SURBL, URIBL_SC_SURBL, URIBL_BLACK,
URIBL_RHS_DOB. The total score is 12.6.
Are you using SURBL ( http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassi
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:40 -0800, SM wrote:
> At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
>
> >http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
That's not a default SA header. X-Spam-Checker-Version is missing, and
that X-Spam-Status is missing autolearn and version. Whatever calls SA,
you want to check with that.
Postini uses it for their clients.
They set up 4 'real' mx records (priority 100,200,300,400) that point to
real postini servers. They set up priority 500 that points to the
(firewalled) smtp server of the client. (as in firewalled to the world,
except to postini)
Works great. Spammers hitting
> From: Rocco Scappatura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:40:33 +0100
> To:
> Conversation: URIBL
> Subject: URIBL
>
>
> Anyway I heard talking about URIBL, which as I have understod is a quite
> different service (it blacklists 'domains' rather 'IPs'). But is it
> maybe a danger
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:03:58PM -0500, Dave Koontz wrote:
> I remember there was a period of time when dozens of URI delist
> requests were submitted all together without any detail. Could that
> have been the case with your reports?
I'm not sure if it was specifically what you're thinking
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Didn't qmail have a problem if it hit a 'dead' primary mx server first?
Qmail has a problem if it gets a 421 on the lowest MX. But if the lowest
MX is totally dead Qmail is fine with it.
Mike Fahey wrote:
Every 24 hours I see the following errors and spamassassin has to be
restarted. Other machines running SA are fine.
SA 3.2.4_1
freebsd 6.2
perl5.8.8
spamd[19777]: bayes: cannot open bayes databases
/usr/local/share/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: Interrupted
system c
> For what it's worth I'm seeing an escalation here in the UK
> and on US and AUS servers so it's not isolated. Admittedly
> it's not a large proportion but it is a rise.
How do you have inferred this?
rocsca
65 matches
Mail list logo
