Hi,
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
there's been a few reports of this, but we're really mystified.
A test case would help, but it doesn't seem easily reproducable
for anyone :(
- --j.
You could add a fragment like this to spamd (introducing a dependency on
Proc::P
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:54:04 +0530 "BG Mahesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to install SA 3.0 on RedHat linux. During testing the error
> I get is,
>
> % make test
> [dnsbl test failures]
>
> How do I fix this problem?
What does:
perl -e 'use Net::DNS; print $Net::DNS::VERSIO
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:33:21 +0100 Ronan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the following error is being thrown at me.
> I have tried adding the switch "--with-version=3" and also with 3.0 and
> 3.0.0 but still doesnt work.
>
> Anyclues?
...
> The error was:
> version.h.pl: version.h.pl: version
Hi,
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:33:08 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> It seems that the marked spam is never getting to this point, to have these
> rules applied to it. It is being marked and then being sent to the user,
> marked as spam, so that part is working. Is there another file somewhere
Hi,
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:30:59 +0200 Cedric Foll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First I've had a look on my spam scores and i saw a strange behavior,
> BAYES_99 get a lower score (1.9) than BAYES_95 (2.0).
> I've had a look on http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_0_x.html and
> this score seem
hich I'm currently using to fend off blog comment spam.
I've previously released Text::SpamAssassin as Blog::SpamAssassin
(working title) but after consulting with the CPAN gurus, I changed the
name to something more accurate.
Thanks,
--
Bob Apthorpe
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:34:28 -0700 Chip Paswater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I was looking at the Bayes scores in 3.0 and had a couple of questions:
[...]
... the FAQ ... read the FAQ ...
-- Bob
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:47:20 -0400 Kris Deugau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> > I also firewall traffic from unassigned ARIN netspace - see
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space.
>
> I did this for a while, but somewhere a
A scores each list because I'm blocking on the basis of a known and
defensible policy. My choice of lists will vary depending on the user
base but my rationale won't.
And yes, I watch my logs.
Anything that passes all that gets handed to SpamAssassin and the little
spam that does make it through gets fed to SpamCop.
--
Bob Apthorpe
Hi,
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:53:47 -0500 Andy Norris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While attempting to install 3.0 via MCPAN, everything seemed to go okay until:
>
> Makefile:54: *** missing separator. Stop.
>/usr/bin/make -- NOT OK
> Running make test
>Can't test without successful make
>
very, very old version of CPAN (<1.50?) CPAN hasn't
tried to upgrade core perl in years (since 5.6.0 or 5.6.1 IIRC.)
--
Bob Apthorpe
Hi,
Not mine, but I've had good results with the Gaim packages from here:
http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/rpm-navigation.php?cat=Network%2Fspamassassin/
hth,
-- Bob
e RFCs but only incompetents set their mail systems to do that and
that mail is often safely ignored.
This is better addressed on SPAM-L.
--
Bob Apthorpe
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION:
>
> If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will
> have missed the fact that spamd has been moved
> from /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin . Howev
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:16:58 -0700 "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache is using a DoS tool as a blacklist?
>
> Send email from your ISP to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and watch the
> results. They say one email to that address is sufficient to cause
> the entire relay path to be marked as spamm
Hi,
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Sherwood Botsford wrote:
> > > In my logic, there is no valid reason that a remote
> > > sender would connect directly to our SMTP server from
> > > their dynamic/DSL/cable IP to send our customer's an
> > > email ... I think ? Valid 'remote to local' emails
> > > being
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Michele Neylon::Blacknight Solutions wrote:
>
> [...]
> Did someone HAVE a good reason for why it's not happening? I can live
> with a four-character longer subject line.
Please check the archives. Someone else has
Hi,
[N.B.: I'm speaking generally to this thread, not specifically to Chris.]
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
> I was mistaken. MIT now teaches Trolling 101. [...]
I'm not willing to personalize this issue. SpamAssassin *is* difficult to
use and is probably unusable for most unskilled/
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:55:08 -0400 Don Saklad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See also
> usability
> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+usability
Please rephrase this in the form of a question.
-- Bob
Hi,
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:26:58 -0400 Don Saklad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...to put into action or service : avail oneself of : employ
>
> Click on the verb
> use[2, verb]
> at
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=use&x=15&y=15
That really doesn't help, now does it?
Hi,
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> In terms of a reverse record, you can only have ONE PTR per ip, on a mail
> server that may handle hundreds of domains. SPF is *certainly* valid in
> this regard, as sort of a finer-grained PTR.
IIRC, you can have multiple PTRs per IP b
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:01:40 -0700 Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 August 2004 5:46 am, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> > At 10:31 PM 8.24.2004 -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > >> > #!/bin/sh
> > >> > DEFFILES="/etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf"
> > >> > GREPSTR="describe"
> > >> >
cheerfully accepted.
I'm not sure Blog::SpamAssassin is the best name; if I can get a decent
name and some code/doc review, I'll post it to CPAN.
Have fun,
--
Bob Apthorpe
Hi,
Bad form to reply to one's own posts, I know, but I've just updated
babycart so it takes metadata as well comments. Also, there's better
debugging info, better docs, comments are now swaddled in RFC8222 format
for easier digestions by SA (including DNSBL lookup on the source IP
address), there
Hi,
[cc'd to SATalk]
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:45:18 -0700 Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 6:57:12 PM, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> > You've sparked a thought. I'd rather not (badly) rewrite and maintain
> > existing, tested co
25 matches
Mail list logo
