On Sun, July 12, 2009 21:04, Admin wrote:
> $ sa-learn --no-sync --spam --mbox ~/mail/Spam
ls -l ~/mail/Spam
ls -l /mail/Spam
> bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/user/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O:
> tie failed:
does the dir .spamassassin exists with the same user ?
have you set some path
Hi Noah,
Am 2009-07-12 11:58:23, schrieb Admin:
> okay how do I script sa-learn to learn the contents of a particular
> file.
I use courier (Maildir) with procmail and if I have spams, then I move
it to the folder "INBOX.Learn_IS_Spam" and if I have ham found in the
spamfolders, I move it to
> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>> Some spam is getting past the spamassassin. So I;d like to devise a
scheme where I manually place the emails not caught by spamassass in
my
>>> 'spam-mail' folder. Is there any way to get spamassassin to process the
>>> contents of the folder so I those
Wow, I had a feeling I was opening a can of worms here. This is one area
where I really feel the SA documentation could benefit by having some real
world examples.
Right now I am just going with the one internal_networks set to the ip of my
SA server. I'm not setting any trusted_networks. I fi
> > RW wrote:
> > > The much more common scenario is that the first spam hits BAYES_50
> > > and subsequent BAYES_99 hits are countered by a negative AWL score.
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:09:04 -0400
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Technically, this only counters half the score. It also gets "paid
> > b
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10.07.09 04:15, HerbEppel wrote:
>> Thanks, but pop3 works well for me, actually.
>>
>> The point is that I want to divert messages flagged as spam into a
>> web-based
>> spam folder that I can visit occasionally for assessment, thereby
>> preventing
>
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, July 10, 2009 13:03, HerbEppel wrote:
> >> Yes, I had wondered who I should pester with my question :blush:
> >> Thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > also make them clearify why use pop3 and folders :)
> >
> > pop3 is only for getting mails not for
Hi there,
Any clues how I can fix the following error?
sa-learn is failing
$ sa-learn --no-sync --spam --mbox ~/mail/Spam
bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/user/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O:
tie failed:
bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/user/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O:
tie failed: Ba
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Hi there,
Some spam is getting past the spamassassin. So I;d like to devise a
scheme where I manually place the emails not caught by spamassass in my
'spam-mail' folder. Is there any way to get spamassassin to process the
contents of the folder so I those accepted messa
> Hi there,
>
> Some spam is getting past the spamassassin. So I;d like to devise a
> scheme where I manually place the emails not caught by spamassass in my
> 'spam-mail' folder. Is there any way to get spamassassin to process the
> contents of the folder so I those accepted messages are conside
Hi there,
Some spam is getting past the spamassassin. So I;d like to devise a
scheme where I manually place the emails not caught by spamassass in my
'spam-mail' folder. Is there any way to get spamassassin to process the
contents of the folder so I those accepted messages are considered spa
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:29:07 +0200 (CEST)
"Benny Pedersen" wrote:
>
> On Sun, July 12, 2009 16:21, RW wrote:
> > Generally forwarders should go into your internal networks,
>
> no no, internal networks is your own wan ips nothing more, imho
>
> forwarders is trusted/msa
If you do it that way
On 09.07.09 09:30, Daniel Schaefer wrote:
> I have a similar setup. If a Spam message makes it to my inbox with less
> than the required_score, I put it into a SPAM folder and run sa-learn on
> the folder. Should I also implement the following ignore rules?
>
> bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Fl
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, McDonald, Dan wrote:
They have. They are using underscores, which are a [:punct:], but don't form a
\b break.
New rules:
body__MED_BEG_SP/\bw{2,3}[[:space:]][[:alpha:]]{2,6}\d{2,6}/i
body__MED_BEG_PUNCT /\bw{2,3}[[:punct:]]{1,3}[[:alpha:]]{2,6}\d{2,6}/i
body
Mikael Bak wrote:
schmero...@gmail.com wrote:
One of our client's websites gets hacked frequently - 1x per month -
usually with some kind of phishing scam.
We've also had some problems lately. After deep investigations we saw
that in 100% of the cases there were no break-ins at all. Not in th
On Sun, July 12, 2009 16:21, RW wrote:
> Generally forwarders should go into your internal networks,
no no, internal networks is your own wan ips nothing more, imho
forwarders is trusted/msa
> unless they rewrite the return-path
why does this change ?
> or there is a possibility of mail submi
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
MrGibbage wrote:
>
> I have read the help pages for those two settings over and over, and
> I guess I'm just not smart enough. I can't figure out what I should
> put for those two settings. Can one of you give me a hand by looking
> at the headers from
schmero...@gmail.com wrote:
> One of our client's websites gets hacked frequently - 1x per month -
> usually with some kind of phishing scam.
>
We've also had some problems lately. After deep investigations we saw
that in 100% of the cases there were no break-ins at all. Not in the old
fashioned
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
I still wonder, though, if we shouldn't be turning these back into
hostnames and looking them up in the regular URI blacklists
Given the obvious objections to having the primary URIBL mechanism try to
parse obfuscations, I once again questio
On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 05:57 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> The pro's and cons aside, a finer degree of control would be very
> welcome and very useful. It probably exists for those people who know SA
> inside out - but fine control for the rest of us would be nice too!
If you don't grok ho
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 20:10 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> > > The problem is have is that sometimes I get RBL hits eventhrough the
> > > sender
> > > is using a valid smarthost.
BTW, using that relay is not being punished in any way, and actually
entirely irrelevant to this NJABL PROX
2009/7/11 Sim :
>> New rules:
>> body __MED_BEG_SP /\bw{2,3}[[:space:]][[:alpha:]]{2,6}\d{2,6}/i
>> body __MED_BEG_PUNCT /\bw{2,3}[[:punct:]]{1,3}[[:alpha:]]{2,6}\d{2,6}/i
>> body __MED_BEG_DOT /\bw{2,3}\.[[:alpha:]]{2,6}\d{2,6}/i
>> body __MED_BEG_BOTH
>> /\bw{2,3}[[:punct:][:spac
I have read the help pages for those two settings over and over, and I guess
I'm just not smart enough. I can't figure out what I should put for those
two settings. Can one of you give me a hand by looking at the headers from
an email? I can tell you that my SA installation is on
"ps11651.dream
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
dmy wrote:
> Well, if I take a look at http://combined.njabl.org/listing.html it
> says that "Being a dial-up port IP or other dynamic address" is
> reason enough to become listed. So therefore I don't want the last
> IPs to score on that list because they
*SOLVED*
Well, I go in and add a couple lines of code to get it to work. Really
strange. I first re-installed both razor packages (using PREFIX=$HOME),
which always installs my libraries into $home/lib. I then added the
following two lines of code to my Razor2.pm file (around line 66):
# fi
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 08:10:47PM -0700, dmy wrote:
>
> As I mentioned this problem often leads to emails with scores around 3 and
> if this problem woudn't be there I could lower the the threshold to 1.5
Such action makes no sense. You should be raising scores for rules that work
well for you.
26 matches
Mail list logo
