RobertH wrote:
>
>
>
>> Um, that's a file that comes with SA, and it is *NOT* user editable.
>> Therefore, it's not an example, it is a standard config file
>> that generates the default settings that you later over-ride
>> with your local.cf.
>>
>> The 3.2.5 installation tarball will instal
>
> 10_misc.cf isn't in 3.2, 3.1 was the last version to have it.
> In 3.2 it's called 10_default_prefs.cf.
>
> You should have it installed in the default rules dir,
> probably /usr/share/spamassassin.
>
> And no, it's not editable. Or more specifically, you
> shouldn't edit it.
>
theo,
10_misc.cf isn't in 3.2, 3.1 was the last version to have it.
In 3.2 it's called 10_default_prefs.cf.
You should have it installed in the default rules dir, probably
/usr/share/spamassassin.
And no, it's not editable. Or more specifically, you shouldn't edit it.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:40:4
> Um, that's a file that comes with SA, and it is *NOT* user editable.
> Therefore, it's not an example, it is a standard config file
> that generates the default settings that you later over-ride
> with your local.cf.
>
> The 3.2.5 installation tarball will install the version of
> this fil
RobertH wrote:
> is this the best example on the www for this file?
>
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/10_misc.cf
>
> or is there one more recent for 3.2.5 or newer?
>
> - rh
>
>
>
Um, that's a file that comes with SA, and it is *NOT* user editable.
Therefore, it's not an
is this the best example on the www for this file?
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/10_misc.cf
or is there one more recent for 3.2.5 or newer?
- rh
I upgraded my server to Slackware-12.2 and perl-5.10.0 This meant building
and installing the lastest SA, built against perl-5.10.0 rather than -5.8.8.
So, SA-3.2.5 is installed, and several perl modules were upgraded from CPAN
to accommodate it. However, ...
... the related sa-learn and othe
I found what is wrong.Thank u Karsten
The problem was format of the email files. There are two extra headers in
the beginning of the emails
FROM: and RCPT TO:.So I removed all these headers and now spamassassin is
doing its job which is excellent:)
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 03:54 -0800, cnone wrote:
> I scanned over 2000 mails and it gave me score over 5.0 for all of them. Most
> of the scores were 5.4.Is there a way to change default threshold? By the
Yes, there is. Mind having a look at your configuration? The default
local.cf ships with a gla
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 07:14 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:02:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > It was good for a laugh, really. :) Until a strange feeling crept over
> > me, realizing the words...
>
> > Confirmed. That paragraph *severely* affected Bayes for me. No
not sure where this comes from?
(!)_DIE: Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/CompiledRegexps/body_neg999.pm
in @INC (@INC contains: /var/db/spamassassin/compiled/5.008/3.002005
/var/db/spamassassin/compiled/5.008/3.002005/auto lib
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.8/BSDPAN
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.
On Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:02:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Just got this in an actual replica watch spam.
> This spam was sent using an innocent third party as the fake sender address
> who will pick up bounces and misdirected spam complaints. It went out via a
> third party host
On 09.02.09 03:54, cnone wrote:
> I scanned over 2000 mails and it gave me score over 5.0 for all of them.
If they are not really spams, there is something broken in your
configuration apparently
> Most of the scores were 5.4.Is there a way to change default threshold? By
> the way if the score i
I scanned over 2000 mails and it gave me score over 5.0 for all of them. Most
of the scores were 5.4.Is there a way to change default threshold? By the
way if the score is very higher than 5.0 like 8.0,does that mean it has the
highest probability to be a spam?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>>
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 17:39 -0800, cnone wrote:
> > Thank u very much.It works.By not accurate,you mean spam detection will not
> > be accurate?
On 09.02.09 03:50, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> By "accurate" I mean -- SA can do a best effort guess. SA can not one
> hundred percent accurately iden
15 matches
Mail list logo