Re: undefined symbol:Mail_SpamAssassin_CompiledRegexps_body_0_scan1

If you or anyone wants to see the damaged folder, it is zipped and can be downloaded: http://www.localnet.fi/jarif/sa-compiled-bad.zip

FP case for FM_DOESNT_SAY_STOCK

Not sure who owns this rule, but I just got a note about a FP case in this rule. The message was a legitamate email from a stock broker, which contained symbol quotes. However, the email used the word "securities" instead of "stock". It's certainly quite valid to talk about stocks as securities,

Re: whitelist_from not working

> >On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 07:52 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > >>I'm going to suggest again that, given how much pain it causes noobs, > >>perhaps the use of whitelist_from should generate a lint _warning_ that it > >>should only be used if no other whitelist method will work... > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008,

RE: had it with spaces spam and idiots at hotmail

RobertH wrote: > > this looks for it, assigns some reasonable scores, and if (add your > > favorite shortcut) bumps it up another 5. > > > > uri ST_SPACES /\.spaces\.live\.com/$ > > score ST_SPACES 5 3 4 2 > > > > meta ST_SPACES_BUMP (ST_SPACES && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET || > > RCVD_IN_X

Re: whitelist_from not working

On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 11:15 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > The thing with noobs and whitelist_from (according to my experience on > > this list) appears to be a lack of reading. I got the impression most of > > them just blindly whitelist_from the

Re: undefined symbol:Mail_SpamAssassin_CompiledRegexps_body_0_scan1

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:40 +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote: > > > > Which third-party rule-sets do you use? Can you perhaps > > identify one that triggers this? *sigh* I wished you would actually answer this and some other questions I have been repeating... A bug report that is not reproducible,

Re: whitelist_from not working

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 07:52 -0700, John Hardin wrote: I'm going to suggest again that, given how much pain it causes noobs, perhaps the use of whitelist_from should generate a lint _warning_ that it should only be used if no other whitelist method

RE: had it with spaces spam and idiots at hotmail

> > this looks for it, assigns some reasonable scores, and if (add your > favorite shortcut) bumps it up another 5. > > uri ST_SPACES /\.spaces\.live\.com/$ > score ST_SPACES 5 3 4 2 > > meta ST_SPACES_BUMP (ST_SPACES && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET || > RCVD_IN_XBL > || RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMC

Re: whitelist_from not working

On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 07:52 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > I'm going to suggest again that, given how much pain it causes noobs, > perhaps the use of whitelist_from should generate a lint _warning_ that it > should only be used if no other whitelist method will work... The thing with noobs and whit

Re: why is this message hitting URIBL_BLACK ...

Oh, I see now, I thought it was only testing the sender. Yes, one of the domains mentioned in the message body was listed. Thanks! Claudia John Hardin escribió: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Claudia Burman wrote: ...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ? Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Receiv

Re: why is this message hitting URIBL_BLACK ...

Claudia Burman wrote: ...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ? Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from [...] (sending to my server) Received: from pikachu.nic.ar (unknown [140.191.48.11]) by maderna.nic.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E07D7049; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:19 -0200

Re: why is this message hitting URIBL_BLACK ...

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Claudia Burman wrote: ...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ? Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from [...] (sending to my server) Received: from pikachu.nic.ar (unknown [140.191.48.11]) by maderna.nic.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E07D7049;

Re: why is this message hitting URIBL_BLACK ...

Claudia Burman wrote: ...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ? Another message from the same domain doesn't hit the rule uribl.com checks embedded URIs in the message, not the from domain. The content of the two messages was obviously different. One contained a listed URI, the other

why is this message hitting URIBL_BLACK ...

...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ? Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from [...] (sending to my server) Received: from pikachu.nic.ar (unknown [140.191.48.11]) by maderna.nic.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E07D7049; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:19 -0200 (ARST) Received

Re: had it with spaces spam and idiots at hotmail

Michael Scheidell wrote: I have had it with spaces live random url spam. we get thousands of them, most from zombots, and idiots at hotmail want a valid live account to process the complaint" "Thank you for reporting spam to the Windows Live Hotmail Support Team. This is an auto-generated re

Re: Spamassassin+amavis

Luis Croker wrote: How can I tunr off the Network tests (RBLs) ??? Just to probe if it can make the delivery faster. In /etc/amavisd.conf, find the following line: $sa_local_tests_only = 0;# only tests which do not require internet access? and change the setting to = 1 then restar

Re: whitelist_from not working

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Matt Kettler wrote: Benny Pedersen wrote: the more i hear about whitelist_from the more i want to make a bug on it, whitelist_from should imho newer have being implemented Agreed. whitelist_from sucks. However, it's there as a method of last-resort. There are some messa

Re: Spamassassin+amavis

How can I tunr off the Network tests (RBLs) ??? Just to probe if it can make the delivery faster. On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 04:05 +, Ned Slider wrote: > Gary V wrote: > > > > 6 seconds seems somewhat typical. Mostly due to network tests. Some > > RBLs are no longer and you could turn t

Re: whitelist_from not working

Jeff Mincy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Agreed. whitelist_from sucks. However, it's there as a method of >last-resort. There are some messages you can't whitelist in SA using any >other method. (ie: when the sender's server doesn't have reverse DNS). > > Since whitelist_from is sp

Re: whitelist_from not working

From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:24:25 -0400 Benny Pedersen wrote: > On Wed, October 29, 2008 10:18, Nelson Serafica wrote: > > >> Is this the right way to whitelist? As I check, when using 3.2.5, this is >> the right way of whitelistin

Re: had it with spaces spam and idiots at hotmail

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:13:34AM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote: > I have had it with spaces live random url spam. we get thousands of them, > most from zombots, and idiots at hotmail want a valid live account to > process the complaint" > > "Thank you for reporting spam to the Windows Live Ho

Re: whitelist_from not working

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:24:25AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > > There are some messages you can't whitelist in SA using any other method. > (ie: when the sender's server doesn't have reverse DNS). You can use trusted_networks + ALL_TRUSTED to whitelist. Given of course that there aren't any dyna

Re: whitelist_from not working

Benny Pedersen wrote: > On Wed, October 29, 2008 10:18, Nelson Serafica wrote: > > >> Is this the right way to whitelist? As I check, when using 3.2.5, this is >> the right way of whitelisting a domain. >> > > the more i hear about whitelist_from the more i want to make a bug on it, > white

Re: whitelist_from not working

Nelson Serafica wrote: > I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5. Now, I must a > whitelist_from containing [EMAIL PROTECTED] in my local.cf > . > > However, there are still 1 email that has been tagged as spam. In my > understanding, if a domain was in whitel

had it with spaces spam and idiots at hotmail

I have had it with spaces live random url spam. we get thousands of them, most from zombots, and idiots at hotmail want a valid live account to process the complaint" "Thank you for reporting spam to the Windows Live Hotmail Support Team. This is an auto-generated response to inform you that w

Re: whitelist_from not working

On Wed, October 29, 2008 10:18, Nelson Serafica wrote: > Is this the right way to whitelist? As I check, when using 3.2.5, this is > the right way of whitelisting a domain. the more i hear about whitelist_from the more i want to make a bug on it, whitelist_from should imho newer have being imple

Re: whitelist_from not working

On 29.10.08 17:18, Nelson Serafica wrote: > I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5. Now, I must a whitelist_from containing *@ > foo.com in my local.cf. > > However, there are still 1 email that has been tagged as spam. Only one? show the headers or upload it somewhere.. > In my understanding, if a domai

whitelist_from not working

I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5. Now, I must a whitelist_from containing *@ foo.com in my local.cf. However, there are still 1 email that has been tagged as spam. In my understanding, if a domain was in whitelist_from, even if it was tagged as spam, it will delivered to the recipient. I restart the s