Custome rule problem.

2009-02-19 Thread Nigel Frankcom
Hi All, I've written the following rule to deal with spam a particular set of users are getting hit by that very few of my rules are hitting. Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory. Am I missing something stupid?

Re: Custome rule problem.

2009-02-19 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 14:50 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory. Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn't be the 1st time) You're missing a lot of details. How do you test your rules?

RE: Custome rule problem.

2009-02-19 Thread Bowie Bailey
Nigel Frankcom wrote: Hi All, I've written the following rule to deal with spam a particular set of users are getting hit by that very few of my rules are hitting. Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory. Am I

Re: Custome rule problem.

2009-02-19 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:16:48 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 14:50 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory. Am I missing something stupid?

Re: Custome rule problem.

2009-02-19 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 15:21 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:16:48 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn't be the 1st time) You're missing a lot of details. How do you test your rules? Try using the -D debugging, to see if the

Re: Custome rule problem.

2009-02-19 Thread John Hardin
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Nigel Frankcom wrote: Testing was done through spamassassin --lint and with debug. I used a mail that *should* have hit the rules. --lint is not for testing rule performance, as it uses an internally-generated test message. It's just to check for syntax errors. As has

Re: Custome rule problem.

2009-02-19 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 14:50 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: Hi All, I've written the following rule to deal with spam a particular set of users are getting hit by that very few of my rules are hitting. Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be ignored. It's in the

Re: Custome rule problem. Resolved

2009-02-19 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:01:48 -0800 (PST), John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Nigel Frankcom wrote: Testing was done through spamassassin --lint and with debug. I used a mail that *should* have hit the rules. --lint is not for testing rule performance, as it uses an

Re: Custome rule problem. Resolved

2009-02-19 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 16:37 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: Many thanks to all... I have the rule working. As usual it was a syntactical error (typo). ;) Good to see it fixed. uri __NFuri m{^https?\://www\.google\.com/groups?}i Aha, so it's not m,groups/, with a trailing slash, as in your

Re: Custome rule problem. Resolved

2009-02-19 Thread Martin Gregorie
Feel free to mangle it, I'd appreciate a copy of any wider ranging working versions though. Here's what I've been using for quite a while. It was written when there was a spate of spam punting LiveSpace websites: header __MG_LSP1 From =~ /spaces\.live\.com/i uri __MG_LSP2

config no subject rewrite, learning spam headers

2009-02-19 Thread Ray
I just moved to a new hosting provider who has Spamassassin 3.2.4 running (on some kind of Linux, 2.6.18-92.1.22.el5) and I'm otherwise unfamiliar with SA. I'd like some degree of control over what SA is doing, but config for this is proving confusing for me. Ideally if I could get SA just to