comparity wrote:
spamis wrote:
Hi comparity,
has you could fix the problem updating SA?
No, not as far as I can tell. I still get the same spam, and no
indication that bayes has been applied.
--
I'm using an older version of qmail-scanner-st. I have saw in the
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
hello jeff. thanks for reply. it is a dedicated server and we oversee the
mailboxes. 99% of the time our mailboxes, pop3/imap do not show a problem.
however, this has only started happening since enabling SA so therefore im
at a bit out of my depth when it comes to troublshooting this service. is
Quoting Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SpamAssassin and Exim cannot work together without some other program
coordinating them. You're probably going to need to find out what that
program is in order to solve things. Any FAQs about SpamAssassin
itself may address the coordinating program, but
Jeff Chan wrote:
Quoting Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SpamAssassin and Exim cannot work together without some other program
coordinating them. You're probably going to need to find out what that
program is in order to solve things. Any FAQs about SpamAssassin
itself may address the
Hi,
AlxFrag wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
Quoting Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SpamAssassin and Exim cannot work together without some other program
coordinating them. You're probably going to need to find out what that
program is in order to solve things. Any FAQs about SpamAssassin
itself may
Quoting ploppy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
hello jeff. thanks for reply. it is a dedicated server and we oversee the
mailboxes. 99% of the time our mailboxes, pop3/imap do not show a problem.
however, this has only started happening since enabling SA so therefore im
at a bit out of my depth when it
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 10:19 +0100, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
That was it. I copy-pasted those rules from
/etc/mail/spamassassin/misc.cf on one of the servers I maintain;
they're just rules I've created to try to keep as much spam as possible
out of customers'
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Radich wrote:
Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
MX records I'm saying as follows:
100 - Real
200 - Real perhaps, as many real as you want
300 - Bogus - one that
In general, any rules you see posted to the list that you want to use
should be pasted into any .cf file in your main SA site-rules
directory
(usually either /etc/mail/spamassassin/ or /etc/spamassassin/). Not
all
of them are formally distributed as rulesets - these are an
independent
McDonald, Dan skrev:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 10:19 +0100, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
That was it. I copy-pasted those rules from
/etc/mail/spamassassin/misc.cf on one of the servers I maintain;
they're just rules I've created to try to keep as much spam as possible
out of
i am kind of new to spamassissin, i have some doubts please correct
me if i am wrong
###
Fri Feb 22 21:08:33 2008 [29858] info: spamd: checking message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for
(unknown):500
Fri Feb 22 21:08:33 2008 [29858] info: spamd:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 19:32 +0530, Agnello George wrote:
###
Fri Feb 22 21:08:33 2008 [29858] info: spamd: checking message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for
(unknown):500
Fri Feb 22 21:08:33 2008 [29858] info: spamd: result: Y 5 -
Hello list,
this is my first post here, although I have been happily using spamassassin
for years now.
I noticed something unsettling some time ago, and yesterday I think I found
the cause.
What I noticed was that when sending mail from one of my addresses to a
mailing list (or to myself)
Marc Perkel wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Because there is occasionally some server doing something very weird
you might have to open up port 25 one some specific IP who is
running something really dumb. I think I've had to do this only once
or twice. But once you open
Randal, Phil skrev:
body NICE_GIRL_03 /Email me at .{,74} only, because I am writing
not from my personal email\./
Would do nicely.
No need to be too clever here.
Cheers,
Phil
Apparently that won't work on all systems... (And that's why I ran into
problems before..)
On my SUSE
Anders Norrbring wrote:
McDonald, Dan skrev:
why are you trying to match up to 74 beginning of bodies (^) or
whitespaces (\s) between at and only? Perhaps you want \S{,74},
which would be up to 74 non-whitespace characters.
I just copied Kris' ruleset without thinking much of it. And my
Am 2008-02-18 17:26:57, schrieb ram:
you usually wait for the first mail and then block all mails containing
the domain
I do this too and it works nicely...
But sometimes I get the messages too fast in to put the new DOMAIN into
the list which has now over 780 lines/domains.
SO I have
Am 2008-02-19 14:58:51, schrieb Justin Mason:
Rubin Bennett writes:
P.S.: List Admins: Is there a way to toss Nabble postings
automatically? They annoy the hell out of me, and I suspect I'm not
alone :)
Actually, Nabble posting is fine. Please avoid setting list
policy without
From: Andreas Ntaflos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To spamassassin this spam appears to come from myself. It scored a low
AWL but
over 16 points all in all so the next message received from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would certainly get high AWL score.
My questions are these: did I get this right? Is
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:14 +0100, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
Le Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:57:55 +0100,
Karsten Bräckelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
That's not a
I see a lot of messages hitting BAYES_00 and reducing enough to make it
a FN. After some learning, problem solved, but still an issue for new
message types. Is there a way to protect from this sort of thing? Like a
recipe not to add the bayes score if the score is over 7 and BAYES_50 or
lower?
This has worked very well here. This is more specific to the
sentence the bored girl always uses.
/Email me at [A-Za-z]{1,[EMAIL PROTECTED],25}\.info only/
Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology
Hello,
I thought I set this in /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd for RedHat Linux but
maybe I'm wrong. I see this about --max-children for spamd:
-m number , --max-children=number
This option specifies the maximum number of children to spawn.
Spamd will spawn that number of children, then sleep in
I have one qmail server with, simscan, qmail, vpopmail and spamassassin, I
installed spamassassin by cpan and all things he need, but on my log of
spamassasin show this problem with cannot resolv localhost address, I used on
my file resolv.conf
nameserver 127.0.0.1 because I use one dnscache for
On Friday 22 February 2008 17:52:13 Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
From: Andreas Ntaflos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To spamassassin this spam appears to come from myself. It scored a low
AWL but
over 16 points all in all so the next message received from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would certainly get
I've been through the SA man pages, etc., and can't find a description of
rule matching that answers this question: when more than one header of a
certain type exists, will a rule requiring a negative match count once per
e-mail, or once per header.
Clear as mud.
Here's what I mean. I have
Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
[snip]
So I added my mailserver to the trusted_networks but after removing that
particularly troublesome address from the whitelist
(spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist) and a few tests it seems that AWL
again scores in the wrong direction. Should I also add the
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Been down long?
93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org
server ns8.spamhaus.org
Default server: ns8.spamhaus.org
Address: 216.168.28.44#53
93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org
Server: ns8.spamhaus.org
Address:216.168.28.44#53
Non-authoritative answer:
At 13:22 22-02-2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Been down long?
93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org
server ns8.spamhaus.org
Pbl.spamhaus.org works for me. I get an answer for that query. Note
that spamhaus.org lists several name servers and I'm not hitting
ns8.spamhaus.org. A query to
Been down long?
93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org
server ns8.spamhaus.org
Default server: ns8.spamhaus.org
Address: 216.168.28.44#53
93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org
Server: ns8.spamhaus.org
Address:216.168.28.44#53
Non-authoritative answer:
*** Can't find
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 12:09 -0800, fchan wrote:
Hello,
I thought I set this in /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd for RedHat Linux but
maybe I'm wrong. I see this about --max-children for spamd:
[...]
Here is my option section of my spamd:
# Set default spamd configuration.
SPAMDOPTIONS=-d -m 20 -H
Thank you too for you reply!
On Friday 22 February 2008 22:26:07 René Berber wrote:
Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
[snip]
So I added my mailserver to the trusted_networks but after removing that
particularly troublesome address from the whitelist
(spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist) and
SM wrote:
At 13:22 22-02-2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Been down long?
93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org
server ns8.spamhaus.org
host 93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org 194.109.9.7
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
scanner# host 93.244.183.212.pbl.spamhaus.org
Joseph Brennan wrote:
This has worked very well here. This is more specific to the
sentence the bored girl always uses.
/Email me at [A-Za-z]{1,[EMAIL PROTECTED],25}\.info only/
I left my rule more non-specific because I saw a number of non-.info
domains early on. I also figured there was
I've been through the SA man pages, etc., and can't find a description of
rule matching that answers this question: when more than one header of a
certain type exists, will a rule requiring a negative match count once per
e-mail, or once per header.
All headers of the same name are
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
|SECNAP Network Security
Winner 2008 Network Products Guide Hot Companies
FreeBsd SpamAssassin Ports maintainer
Charter member, ICSA labs anti-spam consortium
Works fine for me. Are you sure you weren't blocked?
In fact, I found several sites (different networks,
Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
[snip]
When you remove the email address you should not see an AWL score, if
you still see it then you didn't remove it. Remember that the AWL could
be global or per user (even if the user is the one running amavisd in
your case), dependending on your spamassassin
Michael Scheidell wrote:
In fact, I found several sites (different networks, not mine) where it
doesn't work.
(I don't query more than 10,000 per day)
Perhaps, they're having a flare up of DDoS volume?
The one that works best is the one that is doing 150K queries per day.
Figure that.
At 14:35 22-02-2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
In fact, I found several sites (different networks, not mine) where it
doesn't work.
(I don't query more than 10,000 per day)
The one that works best is the one that is doing 150K queries per day.
Figure that.
tried: each and every one of them.
Am
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 23:12 +0100, Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
Right, that's what I thought, too. I removed the address, sent a mail message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and AWL got no score.
To be expected, first mail since removing from AWL, no previous records.
Half an hour later I sent another
How to enjoy the high scores of --local, but still enjoy network tests?
Man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf says
If four valid scores are listed, then the score that is used
depends on how SpamAssassin is being used. The first score is used
when both Bayes and network tests are
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 08:27:39AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to enjoy the high scores of --local, but still enjoy network tests?
Too bad there's no way to tell it to always use set 0 without needing to do
How inflexible.
Since set 0 sets a score of 0 for network rules, this isn't the
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Works fine for me. Are you sure you weren't blocked?
In fact, I found several sites (different networks, not mine) where it
doesn't work.
(I don't query more than 10,000 per day)
The one that works best is the one that is doing 150K queries per day.
Figure that.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Radich wrote:
Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
MX records I'm saying as follows:
100 - Real
200 - Real
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:02:11 -0800
Bob Amen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Works fine for me. Are you sure you weren't blocked?
In fact, I found several sites (different networks, not mine) where
it doesn't work.
(I don't query more than 10,000 per day)
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:02:11 -0800
Bob Amen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Works fine for me. Are you sure you weren't blocked?
In fact, I found several sites (different networks, not mine) where
it doesn't work.
(I don't query more than 10,000 per day)
--max-children setting, consider raising it
I'm still getting these error messages in my log:
server reached --max-children setting, consider raising it
You get that message if your spamd has less children than you mail server has
smtp threads. I have only --max-children 2 and the limit
Say, if we're all getting the same spam, isn't that what we're paying
sa-update to catch? :-)
BP Using (?: avoids creating backreferences. It should be slightly
BP faster if the backreference is not used.
Wonder just how faster, in an actual spamassassin (not just perl)
context. Anybody got some timing statistics?
50 matches
Mail list logo
