Filter check request

I'm running SA 3.0.2 with Postfix and a few SARE custom rule sets (with weekly rules du jour updates). This has been working amazingly well for over a year, but lately a few things have been getting through, and with unusually low scores. I'm attaching two here - if anyone would be willing to run t

Bayes learning email address

To make it easier for my users to train my server's Bayes database, I set up a user with the following procmail recipe in its .procmailrc::0* < 256000   {   :0c: spamassassin.spamlock   | sa-learn --spam   :0: spamassassin.filelock   spam   }The idea is for people to redirect (not forward) uncaught

Re: Filter check request

I've upgraded to SA 3.1.1 and now both messages hit solidly as spam. I also don't see the ALL_TRUSTED mistake, so I'm guessing that was caused by the trust code mismatch you mentioned. Thanks! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Owen B. Mehegan) 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dream

Stock/image-only spam still getting through

First, the prerequisites: SpamAssassin version 3.1.1, running on Perl version 5.8.4 Debian Linux, 2.6.10 kernel Using spamd I've been inundated with maddening image-only stock spam lately. I've just today sat down to try and tweak my rules up to weed this out. I added sare_stocks and sare_obfu,

Pharma spam getting through again

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 7 10:08:49 2008 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on sandman.nerdnetworks.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BOTNET_SERVERWORDS, FREEM

Re: Pharma spam getting through again

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:51:00PM -0700, Owen B. Mehegan wrote: > Uh, whoops. Apparently I deleted the body of the message before I sent it. > Sorry... > > I was asking for help figuring out why messages like the one I attached > are getting through my SA setup. I'm using SA 3.2.1 with spamd, thr

Uptick in false negatives - filter check?

Posted this to the wrong/no list (via Nabble) yesterday... I've seen an uptick in false negatives lately, and the spam that is getting through is all the same stuff repeatedly. If anyone would be willing to run these samples through their filters and let me know if they get better hits, I would

Re: Uptick in false negatives - filter check?

that the point of Bayesian filtering? I keep getting similar messages, training my bayes db on them, and then more get through. "Kris Deugau [via SpamAssassin]" wrote: > > >Owen Mehegan wrote: >> Posted this to the wrong/no list (via Nabble) yesterday... >&

Re: Uptick in false negatives - filter check?

Oh, and I fixed spam4.txt to be accessible, sorry about that. -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- View this message in context: http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Uptick-in-false-negatives-filter-check-tp107090p107097.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing l