On 6/24/2013 1:29 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> Has anyone modified their Bayes scoring priority, and if so, what were
> your experiences? What scores did you assign?
This has been discussed at length; perhaps start with this archived topic:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/BAYES-99-an
On 6/18/2013 1:18 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> At 8:58 AM -0400 06/18/2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> a.) You are copying/pasting the body of the email, but not the headers.
>
> No, I am copying the headers... however, I am using Eudora (ancient, I
> know) as a mail c
On 6/18/2013 5:31 AM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> At 4:37 PM -0400 06/14/2013, Alex wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi
>> wrote:
>> > I wonder if there's some
>> > difference between running spamassassin manually on the message versus
>> > running spamd.
>>
>> I think the
On 6/12/2013 12:22 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> # 2013 cars local dealership
>>> http://pastebin.com/3bEMiV3B
>>
>> URI in that sample
>>
>> pohformed.com listed on black.uribl.com
>> pohformed.com listed on jp.surbl.org
>> pohformed.com listed on sc.surbl.org
>> pohformed.com listed on dbl.spamh
On 6/10/2013 4:46 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> [Lost track of who wrote this]
>
>> 66.96.253.241
>> 64.120.241.228
>> 66.197.142.29
>> 66.197.142.23
>> 66.197.207.152
>> 66.197.177.174
>> 64.191.61.25
>
> Every single one of those IPs is on our "GreylistStumbler" list, meaning
> they've been gre
On 6/10/2013 2:45 PM, Duncan, Brian M. wrote:
> I rarely have seen any SpamAssasin hits on the bodies of these messages.
>
> (cached, score=-0.125,required 6.5, autolearn=not spam,
> RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.12)
Do you train the Bayes database manually? Or via autolearn only?
I use SA v
On 5/7/2013 11:02 PM, Steve Prior wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 1:44 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> Chris Santerre skrev den 2013-05-06 17:27:
>>> 10 days and still being abused badly. Recommending for everyone to
>>> just refuse any .pw
>>
>> time for spamhaus ? :=)
>>
>>> for those wanting an SA rule, her
I'll top-post, too, just for the sake of consistency. :)
I've had pretty good experiences with Namecheap, actually. I'm in no way
affiliated; I've just used them for cheap domain registrations
(apparently, I'm not the only one) and for cheap SSL certificates in bulk.
But, that's neither here nor
On 4/25/2013 11:55 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think so... IIRC the "REPLACE INTO" deletes existing record and
>>> inserts new one, does not update existing. This caused some issues
>>> for me
>>> some ~10 year
On 4/24/2013 2:42 PM, psychobyte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed that SA is getting a lot of "Duplicate entry" errors for
> AWL and bayes plugins. I can verify that the sql schema is up to date
> for SA 3.3.1-r4 and I've tried retraining the bayes db. Any hints on how
> to troubleshoot this?
>
>
On 4/24/2013 12:12 PM, hospice admin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we're having problems with an outfit called 'Bite Sized Seminars' in the
> UK, who seem to be sending mail out through another company called
> 'Communicado'. A quick google suggests we aren't the only ones.
>
> We have developed a number of
On 4/20/2013 3:20 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-20 05:02:
>
>> Yes, I believe that me and the system always execute SA commands as the
>> "amavis" user. When I was using the SQL setup, I had the following in
>> local.cf:
>>
>
So, the problem seems not to be SQL-specific, as it occurs with SQL or
flat-file DB.
Upon following Benny Pedersen's advice (to move SA configuration
directives from /etc/spamassassin/local.cf to
/var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/user_prefs), I noticed something unusual:
$ ls -lah /var/lib/amavis/.sp
bayes_path /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes
in local.cf, and using the SQL setup, I added
bayes_sql_override_username amavis
Sorry for the confusion!
-Ben
On 4/19/2013 11:02 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On 4/19/2013 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> Ben Johnson skrev den 2
On 4/19/2013 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Ben Johnson skrev den 2013-04-19 18:02:
>
>> Still stumped here...
>
> for amavisd-new, put spamassassin sql setup into user_prefs file for the
> user amavisd-new runs as might be working better then have insecure sql
&g
On 4/19/2013 12:12 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 06:02 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> Still stumped here...
>
> do a bayes sa-learn --backup
>
> switch to file based in SDBM format (which is fast)
>
> do a
>
> sa-learn --restore
>
> feed it a fe
On 4/19/2013 11:42 AM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Is this normal? If so, what is the explanation for this behavior? I have
>
> marked dozens of nearly-identical messages with the subject
> "Garden hose
> expands up to three times its length" as SPAM (over the course of
>
On 4/18/2013 12:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
> My concern now is that I am on 3.3.1, with little control over upgrades.
> I have read all three bug reports in their entirety and Bug 6624 seems
> to be a very legitimate concern. To quote Mark in the bug description:
>
>>
On 4/18/2013 12:26 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 06:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> I have done some searching-around on the string "cannot use bayes on
>> this message; not enough usable tokens found" and have not found
>> anything authoritative regarding w
On 4/17/2013 10:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> The first post on that page was the key. In particular, adding the
>> following to each MySQL "CREATE TABLE" statement:
>>
>> ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
On 4/17/2013 5:39 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 17-04-13 21:40, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> Ideally, using the above directives will tell us whether we're
>> experiencing timeouts, or these spam messages are simply not in the
>> Pyzor or Razor2 databases.
>>
>> O
On 4/17/2013 6:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On 4/17/2013 5:05 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
>> Ben Johnson wrote:
>>> Is there anything else that would cause Bayes tests not be performed? I
>>> ask because other types of tests are disabled automatically und
On 4/17/2013 5:05 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>> Is there anything else that would cause Bayes tests not be performed? I
>> ask because other types of tests are disabled automatically under
>> certain circumstances (e.g., network tests), and I'm won
Daniel, thanks for the quick reply. I'll reply inline, below.
On 4/16/2013 5:01 PM, Daniel McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/16/13 2:59 PM, "Ben Johnson" wrote:
>
>> Are there any normal circumstances under which Bayes tests are not run?
> Yes, if USE_BAY
at Bayes is setup
correctly (database was wiped and now training is done manually and is
supervised), and that network tests are being performed when messages
are scanned.
Thanks for sticking with me through all of this, guys!
-Ben
On 1/18/2013 11:51 AM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> So, I've bee
On 2/7/2013 11:13 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> On 2/7/2013 6:58 AM, RW wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 07:20:24 -0800
>> Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>> is there a way I can put something in a rule that would cause bayes
>>> not to learn - such as a rule that detects bayes poisoning?
>> Why do you think t
On 2/1/2013 7:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, RW wrote:
>
>> ALLOWING APPENDS
>>By appends we mean the case of mail moving when the source folder is
>>unknown, e.g. when you move from some other account or with tools
>>like offlineimap. You should be careful with allo
On 2/1/2013 12:00 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> John, thanks for pointing-out the problems associated with re-sending
>> the messages via sendmail.
>>
>> I threw a line out to the Dovecot users group and learned how to
On 1/31/2013 5:50 PM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:12:15 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>
>>> So, I finally got around to tackling this change.
>>>
>>> With a couple of simple modifica
On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Yes, users are allowed to train Bayes, via Dovecot's Antispam plug-in.
They do so unsupervised. Why this could be a problem is obvious. And
no,
I don't retain their submissions. I probably should. I wonder if I can
make a few sligh
So, I've been keeping an eye on things again today.
Overall, things look pretty good, and most spam is being blocked
outright at the MTA and scored appropriately in SA if not.
I've been inspecting the X-Spam-Status headers for the handful of
messages that do slip through and noticed that most of
On 1/16/2013 2:22 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 1:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On 1/16/2013 11:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it possible that the training I've been doing over
On 1/16/2013 11:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wow! Adding several more reject_rbl_client entries to the
>&
On 1/16/2013 2:02 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 1/15/13 5:26 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> In postfix's main.cf:
>>
>
>>
>> Hmm, very interesting. No, I have no greylisting in place as yet, and
>> no, my userbase doesn't demand imme
On 1/15/2013 5:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/2013 1:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>
On 1/15/2013 4:39 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/15/2013 4:27 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> On 1/15/2013 4:05 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2013 3:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>> One final question on this subject (sorry...).
>>>>
>>>>
On 1/15/2013 4:05 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/15/2013 3:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> One final question on this subject (sorry...).
>>
>> Is there value in training Bayes on messages that SA classified as spam
>> *due to other test scores*? In other words, if a
One final question on this subject (sorry...).
Is there value in training Bayes on messages that SA classified as spam
*due to other test scores*? In other words, if a message is classified
as SPAM due to a block-list test, but the message is new enough for
Bayes to assign a zero score, should tha
On 1/15/2013 1:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> Question: do you have any SMTP-time hard-reject DNSBL tests in pla
On 1/14/2013 8:16 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> I understand that snowshoe spam may not hit any net tests. I guess my
>> confusion is around what, exactly, classifies spam as "snowshoe".
>
> http://www.spamhaus.org/f
On 1/14/2013 7:48 PM, Noel wrote:
> On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> I understand that snowshoe spam may not hit any net tests. I guess my
>> confusion is around what, exactly, classifies spam as "snowshoe".
>
> Snowshoe spam - spreading a spam r
On 1/14/2013 2:49 PM, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:24:55 -0500
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> A clear pattern has emerged: the X-Spam-Status headers for very
>> obviously spammy messages never contain evidence that network tests
>> contributed to their SA score
On 1/11/2013 4:27 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> I enabled Amavis's SA debugging mode on the server in question and was
> able to extract the debug output for two messages that seem like they
> should definitely be classified as spam.
>
> Message #1: http://pastebin.com/xLMikNJH
&
On 1/10/2013 3:13 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 10-01-13 19:55, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/2013 1:06 PM, RW wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:48:07 -0500
>>> Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>> pon further consideration, this behavior makes p
On 1/10/2013 4:12 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> So, at this point, I'm struggling to understand how the following
>> happened.
>>
>> Over the course of 15 minutes, I received the same exact message four
>> time
On 1/10/2013 1:06 PM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:48:07 -0500
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>> pon further consideration, this behavior makes perfect sense if the
>> mailbox user has moved the message from Inbox to Junk between scans;
>> Dovecot's Antispam filter i
On 1/10/2013 12:18 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On 1/10/2013 11:49 AM, RW wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:43:44 -0500
>> Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This observation begs the question: why are network tests being
>>> performed for some mes
On 1/10/2013 11:49 AM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:43:44 -0500
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> This observation begs the question: why are network tests being
>> performed for some messages but not others? To my knowledge, no
>> white/gray/black listing has
On 1/9/2013 9:13 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2013 7:36 PM, wolfgang wrote:
>>>
>>>> RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,RCVD_IN_CSS,RCVD_IN_PSBL,RCVD_IN_XBL,URIBL_DBL_S
>>>> PAM, URIBL_JP_SURBL autolearn=disabled
On 1/9/2013 7:36 PM, wolfgang wrote:
> On 2013-01-10 01:03, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> I see; I saved the email message out of Thunderbird (with View ->
>> Headers -> All), as a plain text file. Apparently, that process
>> butchers the original message.
>
> In
On 1/9/2013 5:36 PM, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:14:05 -0500
> Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> About five months ago, I experienced a problem that I *thought* I had
>> resolved, but I am observing similar behavior after retraining the
>> Bayes database. While the sym
About five months ago, I experienced a problem that I *thought* I had
resolved, but I am observing similar behavior after retraining the Bayes
database. While the symptoms are similar, the root cause seems to be
different (thankfully). The original problem is documented at
http://spamassassin.10653
On 10/4/2012 2:06 PM, troxlinux wrote:
> Hi list , I try to run sa-learn on centos 6.3 but no work
>
> sa-learn --spam --showdots /dir/dir/domain.com.ni/spam/.spam/cur/
>
> Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (1 message(s) examined)
> ERROR: the Bayes learn function returned an error, please re-r
On 8/22/2012 10:26 AM, Axb wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 04:10 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I did end-up overriding the bayes_path, which provided a workaround for
>> the permissions issues. Cheers to the suggestion.
>
> This is not a workaround, it's common practi
On 8/22/2012 9:43 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> On 8/21/2012 5:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> What good is the --username switch, then?
Thanks for the follow-up, John!
> See other responses.
>
>>>
On 8/22/2012 9:05 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 5:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On 8/21/2012 5:19 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O
On 8/21/2012 5:19 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O
>> /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks
>>
>> ---8<--
>> # sa-learn --username=amavis --du
On 8/20/2012 2:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> I was able to resolve the issue by adding the --username switch to the
> 'sa-learn' executable:
>
> # sa-learn --username=amavis --spam
> /var/vmail/example.com/trainer/Maildir/.INBOX.Spam/cur
>
> Thanks for all of t
On 8/20/2012 2:02 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On 8/20/2012 12:56 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 8/20/2012 12:46 PM, Axb wrote:
>>> On 08/20/2012 06:42 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>>&g
On 8/20/2012 12:56 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 8/20/2012 12:46 PM, Axb wrote:
>> On 08/20/2012 06:42 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> Basically, I need to do something about the spam inundation, as soon as
>> possible.
>>
>> Is there any reason that I s
On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> In any event, at this point, I'm confused as to which user account I
> should be using when executing "sa-learn --spam", for example.
>
> As a bit of background, I'm using ISPConfig 3, which implements virtual
>
On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2012 11:38 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, after disabling auto-learn (for now) and executing "sa-
On 8/16/2012 11:38 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> So, after disabling auto-learn (for now) and executing "sa-learn
>> --clear", and restarting Amavis, I'm still seeing this:
>>
>> No, score=0.593
On 8/16/2012 10:14 AM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On 8/15/2012 4:05 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/15/2012 2:24 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>&
On 8/15/2012 4:05 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 8/15/2012 2:24 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some 99% of the spam that I receive, which is grossly spammy (we'
On 8/15/2012 4:19 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
>> I wasn't aware that autolearning could do a cold-start of Bayes, can
>> anyone confirm whether this is the case?
>
> If you let it run long enough to pass the 200/200 ham/spam thresholds,
> yes; there's no distinction I've ever met
On 8/15/2012 2:24 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> Some 99% of the spam that I receive, which is grossly spammy (we're
>> talking auto loans, cash advances, dink pills, the whole lot) contains
>> "BAYES_00=-1.9" in the te
Hello,
Some 99% of the spam that I receive, which is grossly spammy (we're
talking auto loans, cash advances, dink pills, the whole lot) contains
"BAYES_00=-1.9" in the tests portion of the X-Spam-Status header.
Might anyone know why? This is a stock installation (Ubuntu package on
10.04).
local
On 8/14/2012 9:33 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 8/14/2012 12:35 AM, JP Kelly wrote:
>> How can I disable the DNSWL rule/plugin or whatever. Not just give it
>> a low/zero score but disable it completely.
>> I am tired of seeing RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED in my headers.
>
> If you set the score to zero,
On 8/6/2012 1:32 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 05:25 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> Given that ASF has no other public support channel, and no way to
>> contact anybody to request that the filters be adjusted, what choice do
>> I have beyond pushing to have the softwar
On 8/6/2012 8:01 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-08-05 20:30, Michael Scheidell skrev:
>
>>> X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.8 required=10.0
>>> tests=FROM_12LTRDOM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,URI_HEX
>> default is 5.0, not 10.0
>
> why did ASF change it ?, did thay only change reguired ? :=)
>
Hello,
As an owner of a 12-letter domain, and someone who is unable to post to
any of the Apache mailing lists due to messages being rejected as SPAM
(I'll be surprised if this one if any different), I have to ask, what is
the rationale for the infamous 12-letter-domain-ding?
How many 12-letter d
73 matches
Mail list logo
