Is there any way to make spamc consider a 'timeout' to be a failure event
and fall through to other listed hosts. currently it seems the only time
that failover actually occurs is if spamc can't open a socket on the host.
spamc is being called as 'spamc -d host1,host2,host3', what we are seeing
The log message for the svn says: 'virus-bounce ruleset integration; move
the scores into 50_scores.cf' - i heard this was happing with SA
3.2.but what about us 3.1.x users! Will the .pm and .cf be made
available anywhere? Or we left digging through svn?
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:47:48PM
*dug through svn*
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/rules/trunk/sandbox/jm/?pathrev=482207
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:14:53PM -0700, Rocky Olsen wrote:
The log message for the svn says: 'virus-bounce ruleset integration; move
the scores into 50_scores.cf' - i heard this was happing
on our mailcluster we have spamassassin running with bayes turned on, but
auto learning turned off, we then hand train the bayesdb and push it out to
all the machines.
However weven with bayes_auto_learn turned off, spamd is still creating the
bayes_journal files, which isn't a problem until
If you are going with exim, you'll want to run sa-exim which allows for sa
scanning at smtp. It's also a hell of alot faster than piping the messages
through spamassassin with a transport. there are several how-tos out there
for setting it up with amavis virus scanner.
-Rocky
On Wed, May 18,
I've been getting hit with a lot of german spam that has two exact words, and
then .de urls. This rule handles them well.
rawbody __XM_Pash01 /^(?:Lese\s*selbst|Full\s*Article):$/i
rawbody __XM_Pash02 m{^http://[^/\n]+\.de/(?.*)$}i
rawbody __XM_Pash03
i tried writing a couple of regexps using the possessive quantifiers '++'
and '*+' and spamassassin --lint threw up the error invalid regexp for
rule, but was fine when i switched it to use atomic grouping. Does SA not
support possessive quantifiers? or was it just a mistake in the lint
checking?
Ah crap, you are right, perl doesn't have possessive quantifiers.
thx
-Rocky
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:56:01PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
Rocky Olsen wrote:
i tried writing a couple of regexps using the possessive quantifiers '++'
and '*+' and spamassassin --lint threw up the error
no, possessive quantifiers/atomic grouping discard saved states to back
tracking will not occur for what was matched.
-Rocky
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 03:00:18PM -0700, Mike Jackson wrote:
AFAIK Perl doesn't support possessive Quantifiers, therefore SA does
not.
Is this the same as greedy?
Hehe, yeah, (?) is atomic grouping ;)
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:21:57PM -0400, Keith Ivey wrote:
Rocky Olsen wrote:
no, possessive quantifiers/atomic grouping discard saved states to back
tracking will not occur for what was matched.
Sounds like you might be able to use (?pattern) to do
I'm wondering what the order of evaluation is for the following scenario.
body __sub_meta_a some-not-costly-eval
body __sub_meta_b a-costly-eval
meta meta_rule (__sub_meta_a __sub_meta_b)
under this example, which of the following happen?
a) __sub_meta_a AND __sub_meta_b are evaluated
I had the a problem with your below listed stock spam and others, most of them
also have a 'price' and a 'symbl' in the body. found the following rule
works well enough...even though it's pretty ugly
header __XMStockSGen Subject =~
is procmail running before or after SA?
if sa is running after procmail, you should just be able to do
header CF_DEAR_OCCUPANTX-Procmail =~/\[DEAR-OCCUPANT\]/
at least afaik.
-Rocky
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:54:12PM -0800, Vicki Brown wrote:
I have some X-headers I'm adding with
Before i pull my hair out doing bench/resource test, i was wondering if
anyone out there knew if there was much of a speed/resource usage
difference between the following way of writing the same rule.
Method A:
bodyrule_a /(?:feh|meh|bleh)/i
vs.
Method B:
bod
i wrote something similar to this but instead of of using .+, i used [^]+,
supposedly a tad faster, iirc. also writing s?(?:.+)? as
(?:s(?:[^]+)?)? should be slightly faster cause if it fails to match on
the 's' it won't move on to check for the stuff
-Rocky
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:35:26AM
Thanks
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:16:25PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Rocky Olsen wrote:
Before i pull my hair out doing bench/resource test, i was wondering if
anyone out there knew if there was much of a speed/resource usage
difference between the following way of writing the same rule
A good rule for catching these is:
rawbody XMBSHREFv2 /(?!\ba?href=.)(?:\b\w{2,}ref=.)/i
I score it at 4.0 for our installation, granted doesn't help with the surbl
tagging, but it works well enough at catching these.
-Rocky
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:12:57PM -0500, Thomas Bolioli
17 matches
Mail list logo
