Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd check mine.
In 12 hours it has achieved the impressive, if very worrying size of
1.8 Gb. A check back over the last few days show similarly sized logs.
My system lint's clean. and sa-compile ran fine after I removed the
rules
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:01:53 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd check mine.
In 12 hours it has achieved the impressive, if very worrying size of
1.8 Gb. A check back over the last few days show similarly sized logs
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:28:31 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:01:53 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd check mine.
In 12 hours it has achieved the impressive, if very worrying
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:39:51 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:28:31 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:01:53 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd
Hi All,
Is anyone else that uses ImageInfo.pm getting the following errors
after updating to 3.2.0?
I've tried upgrading ImageInfo with no difference. I'm going to try
upgrading the Perl modules now to see if any of those are out of date.
[3168] warn: Subroutine new redefined at
It won't be SA doing the deleting. SA does nothing with email except
scan and add the headers (if so set).
What happens to the mail before and after is entirely down to your
mail prog. You can't bounce a message from SA, nor can you delete a
message from SA; all you can do is scan it and add
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:13:03 -0700, Josh Graham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last year there was this page I had bookmarked that was basically a php
form where you enter criteria and it would output Spamassassin rules for
you. I lost all my bookmarks when a flash drive died, does anyone know
of the
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:40:53 +0300, Panagiotis Christias
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
the last days we get a lot of spam like this:
spam body begins here
Words disputed interview galli provisions raise, eyebrows dead holders!
KAUF-TIPP DER WOCHE
LESEN SIE DIE NACHRICTEN
Hi All,
As per the title, I'm seeing a pretty big rise this last week. So far
this week has seen the most spam I've ever had to deal with in over 10
years.
RBLs and SA are catching more, as is greylisting. That said, yesterday
saw double my 'usual' amount of spam. Though it's been creeping up
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:48:49 -0700, Loren Wilton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spam's been down for me for the last week or two. I suspect is it shifting
patterns more than an actual change.
Loren
AKA - I'm getting all your spam now? :-D
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:12:27 -0700, Jo Rhett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 6, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Raul Dias wrote:
I was thinking about adding spf checking support directly in the MTA.
This would allow messages that fail spf to be instantly blocked.
Bad idea, and not recommended even by the
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:24:20 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I searched the list and found this rule to catch URL with single space
(www.ledrx .com). Please help me in modifying this rule to catch URL with
double space (www.superveils . com).
body URL_WITH_SPACE
Hi All,
I've recently invested in some books and software to help me figure
out what I *thought* I already knew pretty well (regex). As was
pointed out by a kind list member, there are various 'flavours' of
regex. Can anyone tell me which particular flavour I'm best
concentrating on for SA rules?
Hi All,
Can anyone tell me if I need to escape the characters within the
square braces in the following?
body NF_REM_CHAR1 /remove [*%!+`£$%^()_-=#~]/i
score NF_REM_CHAR1 4.0
describe NF_REM_CHAR1 remove chars for URL spams
TIA
Nigel
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:45:51 +0100, Michael Monnerie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 06:45 Michael Parker wrote:
Persistent DBI connections.
I use it, it worked well until SA 3.1.7, I just updated via CPAN to
3.1.8, and now I get the same error message
# sa-update
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:33:26 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:45:51 +0100, Michael Monnerie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 06:45 Michael Parker wrote:
Persistent DBI connections.
I use it, it worked well until SA 3.1.7, I just
Could the next person passing the record player give it a jolt? It
seems to be stuck on the same track... and I wasn't too keen on this
track the 1st few times I heard it either ;-D
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:44:16 +, Mário Gamito [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I've just installed spamassassin.
I'ts been a long time since i've installed the last mail server and i
never used version 3.
Ok, i've compiled it and copied spamd to /etc/init.d
If i just run ./spamd start, it
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:44:16 +, Mário Gamito [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I've just installed spamassassin.
I'ts been a long time since i've installed the last mail server and i
never used version 3.
Ok, i've compiled it and copied spamd to /etc/init.d
If i
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:17 +0100, Giampaolo Tomassoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
I've already built, but easier
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:14:56 -0500, Miles Fidelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan wrote:
I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
NEW
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:46:31 +0530, Ramprasad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The stock spams are getting obfuscated to extreme lengths.
This mail went clean thru spamassassin. All it got hit were my custom
rules where I score mails containing companies mentioned in stock spam
( risky but no
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:03:08 -0500 , Bowie Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:15:39 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
body Test_01 /remove \\*|\%|\!\/i
score Test_01 4.0
describe Test_01 Test remove asterisk for URL spams
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:15:39 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:13:08 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:40:32 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 06:33:40PM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:12:36 -0500, Jack Gostl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've been watching this for awhile, and there is now a pattern to what I'm
seeing.
I'm running a configuration with multiple users sharing a bayes files. This is
an interim move to facilitate the spamassassin upgrades, and
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:42:51 +0100, David Obando [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear all,
I'm using SA 3.1.7 on a Debian Etch system. My config is in
/etc/spamassassin, the default rules that came with SA are in
/usr/share/spamassassin/, and the rules I get via sa-update-channels are
in
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:13:19 +0100, David Obando [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nigel Frankcom schrieb am 03.02.2007 18:53:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:42:51 +0100, David Obando [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear all,
I'm using SA 3.1.7 on a Debian Etch system. My config is in
/etc/spamassassin
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:27:44 +0100, David Obando [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nigel Frankcom schrieb am 03.02.2007 19:23:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:13:19 +0100, David Obando [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nigel Frankcom schrieb am 03.02.2007 18:53:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:42:51 +0100, David
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:33:29 -0500, Jack Gostl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've been watching this for awhile, and there is now a pattern to what I'm
seeing.
I'm running a configuration with multiple users sharing a bayes files.
This is an interim move to facilitate the spamassassin upgrades, and
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:40:32 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 06:33:40PM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
If I read this right, it looks for an illegal domain character in the
domain component after the first dot. The new pattern puts a % after the
second
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:13:08 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:40:32 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 06:33:40PM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
If I read this right, it looks for an illegal domain character in the
domain
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:59:30 -0800 (PST), z3r0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a common user, just have a hosting account and spamassassin 3.1.7
enabled.
The only directory in all my ftp folder that contains something related to
SA is
in root .spamassassin, where lives just 4 files, one of these is
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:59:30 -0800 (PST), z3r0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a common user, just have a hosting account and spamassassin 3.1.7
enabled.
The only directory in all my ftp folder that contains something related to
SA is
in root .spamassassin, where lives just 4 files, one of these is
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:10:14 -0800 (PST), z3r0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it enough to create a cf file using notepad and save the file like
yourfile.cf (with quotes)
I notice that files that I make that way have the wordpad icon, but the
original cf files
I have in my ftp, has no icon.
So
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:52:02 -0800 (PST), z3r0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:10:14 -0800 (PST), z3r0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it enough to create a cf file using notepad and save the file like
yourfile.cf (with quotes)
I notice that files that I
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 03:19:53 +0530, deepak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jan Doberstein wrote:
deepak schrieb:
Suddenly, i notice huge cpu usage by SA on 3 different servers. nothing
was changed in custom rules or configuration recently. kindly suggest,
what might have been casing this.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:34:09 -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
z3r0 wrote:
rules that would kill system performance
I suppoused rules were nice and good, no time-bombs.
I'm not sure what you're saying there.
So any chances for me or I must forget SA?
That, of course, is up
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:29:13 -0800 (PST), z3r0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing all my spam and those with images and lot of nonsense words only
scores 1.5.
Great for spammers awfull for all the rest of the world.
Since I can't use custom rules because I'm a normal hosting user. I have to
Hi Theo,
Did the fix we discussed drop me off the list as well?
Kind regards
Nigel
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:51:21 -0500, Tim Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that Polyakov is starting to obfuscate the URL.
What would normally be caught because it's in the Spamhaus SBL is getting
missed because of this:
Good day,
Viazzgra $1, 80
Ciazzlis $3, 00
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:49:03 +, --[ UxBoD ]--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for asking as I am sure that it has already been covered. But if
there a rule for the new spate of drug SPAM where the URL has Remove
* to make the link working! in it ?
Thanks,
This was suggested to me
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:16:42 -0500, Matt Kettler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Debug results are available on:
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam01.txt
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug1.txt
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam02.txt
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:16:09 -0500, Matt Kettler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Files redone... a little more informative this time round :-D
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam01.txt
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug1.txt
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam02.txt
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:54:03 +, Ben Wylie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recommend the KAM rules list which can be found here:
http://www.peregrinehw.com/downloads/SpamAssassin/contrib/KAM.cf
This catches the drugs names in these emails.
Cheers,
Ben
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:28:21 -0500, Andy Figueroa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Matt. That sounds like a good suggestion.
Nigel, since you have the emails, if you could capture the debug output
in a file and post like you did the messages, perhaps someone wise could
evaluate what is going
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:28:21 -0500, Andy Figueroa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Matt. That sounds like a good suggestion.
Nigel, since you have the emails, if you could capture the debug output
in a file and post like you did the messages, perhaps someone wise could
evaluate what is going
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:20:09 -0500, Gene Heskett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 25 January 2007 11:56, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:50:13AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
I got this email from Rules_Du_Jour this morning, what is the fix?
Don't take this the wrong way, but
Hi All,
Does anyone have any idea why there are such scoring disparities
between these two emails? I've been seeing a few of these creep
through lately.
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam01.txt
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam02.txt
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam03.txt
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:40:30 -0500, Matt Kettler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone have any idea why there are such scoring disparities
between these two emails? I've been seeing a few of these creep
through lately.
http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam01.txt
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:25:02 +0100, Rocco Scappatura
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm using SA with MySQL.
I have to Amavisd-new server, each talking with a different MySQL
server.
I run every night regularly this command:
sa-learn --sync --force-expire
for datbase maintaining.
I have
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:00:37 +0100, Rocco Scappatura
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you compact the database afterwards?
Nigel
No. How I have to do?
rocsca
From the CL use something like this:
mysql -u root --password=yourpassword -e USE spamassassin;OPTIMIZE
TABLE awl, bayes_expire,
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:46:36 +, Jon Bjorn Njalsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have Net::DNS module installed.
[14934] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[14934] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.57
and
[14934] dbg: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL from
@INC
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:33:08 -0600, Drew Burchett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. 99% of the mail that I sa-learn comes back already learnt
correctly, not learning twice. I've had mail that has NEVER been on my
system and somehow scored a 0 in spamassassin, yet when I run it through
sa-learn, I
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:27:15 -0600, Drew Burchett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nigel Frankcom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:14 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Major bayes problems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:33:08 -0600
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:14:36 +, Ben Wylie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried writing a rule to detect a specific To Header:
header FULLNAMEINTOHEADER To =~ /\Full\sName\\s[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
When i tested this rule against an email with the string, the result i
get is:
* -2.0
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:06:16 -0800, Evan Platt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:44 AM 1/15/2007, you wrote:
Thanks, I have now done this, and it is working fine. However i
think it is still a bug for it to give these problems when a rule is
miswritten in this way.
You make a mistake in a rule,
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:37:01 -0800, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Giampaolo Tomassoni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, who installed the swartasam blocker for techworld?
All of a sudden, they say that worldwide spam levels have dropped.
I don't
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:50:27 -0500, Kyle Quillen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello all,
I am looking for an easy way for my spamassassin to relearn messages
marked as spam that users would like to get. Would it be safe and avoid
bayesian poisoning if I were to setup an email box such as
[EMAIL
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:48:17 +, Ian Eiloart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to get spamd to read user configurations from LDAP, and I see
the errors below all the time. Does anyone know the cause? Or better, the
solution?
I'm using this dsn:
user_scores_dsn
ex. 7012
Local: 623.434.8050 ex. 7012
FAX: 623.434.8453
From: Nigel Frankcom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stand-alone SpamAssassin server specs
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:22:40 -0700, Jeff Hrdy
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:36:19 -0600, Mike French
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After the recent sa-update I get this after a lint:
[8042] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
SUBJECT_IN_BLACKLIST
snip
When you ran sa-update did you add any extra instructions like install
dir?
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:01:09 -0600, Mike French
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up I didn't think the Ident and INet6 was a big
deal, but then again I'm still learning... I'm going to do some more reading
on the sa-update stuff and get it fleshed out. In the mean time, I'm
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:23:59 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:08PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1
branch rules changes via sa-update?
At the moment, we push out the updates manually.
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:46:01 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:23:59 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:08PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1
branch
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:25:53 -0500, Shaun T. Erickson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless of the reason, is my SA now broken, and in any case, how do
I recover from this?
No, your SA won't be broken. IIRC SA won't apply anything if there's a
failure. At least my SA is still running fine here
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 02:16:56 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:11:03PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
Looks like Theo pushed through updates for the wrong version in the 3.1.x
channel ;) Give it an hour or so and it should be fixed.
Um. No, I didn't. In
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:40:49 -0800, John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 12:22 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
if clamav knows its a virus, why then test it as spam in spamassassin ?
Why not? I'm using the clamav plug-in as part of the spamassassin install.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:48:16 +0100, sasa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I have updated SA from spamassassin-3.0.4 to spamassassin-3.1.7 with YUM
method and all it's ok, but when I run sa-update I have this error:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# sa-update
Can't locate IO/Zlib.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:51:05 -0500, Andy Figueroa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still fee like a tyro with SpamAssassin, but my installation is
catching better than 99% with perhaps 0.1% false positives (thanks in
large part to things I've learned from this list), and I think I can
tell you a
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 02:44:38 -0800 (PST), andysutton123
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone
As Matt asked, can you supply the X headers for those mails? and give
some idea of what system you're using and what rule sets you have in
place; also exactly which version of SA 3.0.0, 3.1.0, 3.1.2
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:39:44 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
David Baron wrote:
Occasionally, I get false positives. I run the sa_learn to mark as ham. The
spamassassin spam headings remain. Is there a script or optiont that I might
use to remove them (restore message to
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:16:43 +0100, Emmanuel Lesouef
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Ian, I didn't know rbl-plus.mail-abuse.ja.net. I therefore added
rbl-plus.mail-abuse.org as I'm outside of Janet.
This gives me for my postfix based installlation :
reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org,
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:09 -, Dhaval Patel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello all, I have been using spamassassin for quite some time and just
recently I have
seen some false positives. Looking at the content analysis I see that it is the
URIBL*SURBL rules that is throwing it over the edge.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:13:32 -0500, Thomas Bolioli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Horne wrote:
Set up SMTP AUTH and require your users to log in to
send email. If I
understand correctly Spamassassin automatically trusts
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:06:03 +0100, Christian Eichert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question
Shouldn't X-Spam-Flag: be YES only if the spam score is more than a
given level.
In my configuration it is allwais YES
is this normal ?
I think you may have something broken or misconfigured.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:30:12 +0100, Christian Eichert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
[...]
So to answer your question; no, it's not normal.
thanks nigel
I thought this, but can someone tell where I shoult look for to fix it?
I'd start by checking your local.cf and look
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:42:11 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:30:12 +0100, Christian Eichert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
[...]
So to answer your question; no, it's not normal.
thanks nigel
I thought this, but can someone tell where I
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:26:50 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 11:12:21PM +0100, Georg Sauthoff wrote:
t 1 0 1162501869 some_10digit_hex
^ a) ^ b)
a) I guess some time format?
Yes, UNIX standard
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 00:40:38 -0800, Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 11:59:17 PM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
I was just going through the overnight spam and cam across a load of
very definite FP's.
SURBL seems to be firing on legitimate domains. A check
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:52:09 +, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 00:40:38 -0800, Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 11:59:17 PM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
I was just going through the overnight spam and cam across a load of
very
Hi Jeff,
Below are the headers from 3 emails in chronological order. The 1st
has no headers, a couple of minutes later the 2nd has them, then after
that the 3rd (and all subsequent ones) don't.
I have no clue what's going on. I've check all my local DNS and they
appear to be working fine. Can
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:29:05 +, kailash vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I want to check whether emails that have been sent using my domain.com have
originated from my server.
Is there a check in spamassasin or exim for that. I am using exim mail
server with spamassasin.
thanks,
kailash
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:34:43 -0500, Coffey, Neal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
I get the following off the SA box (I don't use OpenDNS or any
proxying, the rest of my lan uses the same dns that the SA box uses
and all is resolving normally)
[...]
;; AUTHORITY SECTION
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:32:39 +0100, Yet Another Ninja
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/5/2006 7:27 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Is anyone else getting these? Messages with a random subject and the
message is a 5 digit number. What is it?
aren't those digits the password for a password protected
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:16:15 +0100, Yet Another Ninja
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/5/2006 11:02 AM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:32:39 +0100, Yet Another Ninja
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/5/2006 7:27 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Is anyone else getting these? Messages
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:51:06 -0800, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Just found a few ... sent directly from DULs.
(there went my theory...)
:-(
I have a theory that spammers are either doing some sort of probe or
sending out nonspam so that ther headers
Hi All,
I was just going through the overnight spam and cam across a load of
very definite FP's.
SURBL seems to be firing on legitimate domains. A check on
http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi showed none of the
domains listed in the headers or bodies of the emails concerned are in
any
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:12:01 -0500 (EST), Rick Mallett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the proper way to submit material for the ham corpus?
I've got the entire newsletter that resulted in the Nigerian Scam
FP I reported but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to include it in
the posting.
Its
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:11:28 -0800 (PST), san [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Am recieving a spam mails which is just having number on the body just like
1265 or 2196...
any thoughts how to stop this kind of spam..
thanks
san
Ditto
How in the hell does one write a rule for this sh*?
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:34:00 -0700, Darron Froese
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got 12.4 on that kind of spam:
BAYES_99=3.5,
DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX=2.403,
DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME=0.001,
DSPAM_SPAM=4,
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.558,
SAGREY=1
On 4-Dec-06, at 5:24 PM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:35:33 -0800, Evan Platt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:24 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:11:28 -0800 (PST), san [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Am recieving a spam mails which is just having number on the body just like
1265 or 2196...
any thoughts
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:31:47 +0100, Noc Phibee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to your answer
Yes 6 server in load balancing with for all 70 concurrency incoming
only for spam detect and 3 server for virus scan
Michael Scheidell a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: Noc Phibee
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:27:57 -0500, Michael Scheidell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nigel Frankcom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:24 PM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Re: Best Choice for Bayes filtering on SpamAssassin
My MTA has
Hey all,
Did a botnet fall over or am I just lucky?
spam has dropped dramatically here ~80% down. Not that I'm complaining
- just curious is anyone else is seeing the same.
KR
Nigel
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 16:20:53 -0500, Michael Scheidell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Craig Morrison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Michael Scheidell
Cc: Nigel Frankcom; SpamAssassin
Subject: Re: Best Choice for Bayes
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:15:35 -0500, Joe Zitnik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 12/1/2006 at 7:01 AM, Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys -- vague hints as to the contents of the mail really don't help.
It's spam -- we're all getting thousands of spams a day, most of us
(ok, I
for one
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:10:58 +0200, Leon Kolchinsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I thought I was wrong and amavis restart didn't really helped there, but
there is an update for this problem I had with configuration in local.cf not
catching.
It seems that only when I do /etc/init.d/amavis
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:42:40 -0800, R Lists06 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hopefully this hasn't been rehashed to death on this list yet has there ever
been a general consensus as to which rbl's and similar lists are best to use
if you are going to engineer your mail systems with such?
Anyone care
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:06:58 -0800, Quinn Comendant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using the following with qmail's rblsmtpd:
-r zen.spamhaus.org
-r bl.spamcop.net
-r relays.ordb.org
-r cbl.abuseat.org
I do find it very hard to determine if a list is malfunctioning and honest
emails are blocked
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:51:23 -0600, Bookworm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:
I know that most (90%+) email sent now is spam, but what are the
numbers for people who use spam filtering?
I realize it varies by user, sensitivity to false positives, tools
used,
101 - 200 of 316 matches
Mail list logo
