also sprach Jeff Mincy [2009.05.19.1445 +0200]:
> formail -b -t -I X-Spam-Status: -I X-Spam-Flag: -I X-Spam-Checker-Version: -I
> X-Spam-Rbl: -I X-Spam-Pyzor: -I X-Spam-DCC: -I X-Spam-Level: -I X-Spam-Bayes:
> -I X-Spam-Relay: -I X-Spam-Report: -I X-Spam-AWL: -I X-Spam-Karma: -I
> X-Spam-ASN: -
also sprach mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.26.1930 +0200]:
> Indeed. reject != score. Moreover, I wouldn't put
> - MX => private IP
> - MX = "*.mx.*"
Why *.mx.*?
I happen to run all my MX as ?.mx.$my_domain and there is no reason
why this should be indicative of anything.
--
martin;
also sprach Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.16.2031 +0200]:
> It will not have rejected them as it doesn't analyze URI's in bodies. That
> talk was about URIDNSBL, not about RBL checks in general.
aye. Then please pretend I never opened my mouth. In that case I'd
have to agree that if y
also sprach Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.16.0511 +0200]:
> As opposed to preprocessing before using SA to reduce the load. (ie. using
> blacklist and whitelist before SA)
I have a bunch of postfix sanity checks, including RBLs running
first. Then, everything is fed to spamc, which --p
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.16.1125 +0200]:
> The two do very different things. MTA blacklists are direct
> rejection of incoming smtp connections by the MTA (in this case
> postfix). URIDNSBL is a SpamAssassin check of web sites in
> message bodies. Specifically it checks
also sprach Joe Zitnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.07.26.1340 +0200]:
>Bump your BAYES_99 score.
Thanks to all who have replied with this suggestion.
Of course I am aware of the possibility to raise the scores, but
I would not have turned to this list if it would have been
sufficient.
I agree
Hi list,
I just had a flood of spam coming through, which SA classified as
ham. On closer inspection, it turns out that the only tests
triggered for all those mails were HTML_MESSAGE and BAYES_99.
HTML messages are commonplace today (unfortunately), so they don't
add anything to the score.
BAYES
also sprach Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.11.2356 +0200]:
> If the host that adds the auth line in the received header is trusted
> then the authenticated client will also be trusted.
>
> See the third case here: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DynablockIssues
Okay, so the
also sprach Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.11.0432 +0200]:
> For those using Postfix, bug 4980 has a patch to support the auth
> headers, available in Postfix 2.3 and later, that can be used to extend
> your trust path to authenticated users.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAss
also sprach Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.02.1827 +0200]:
> I run two copies of spamd with different -p port options, and point
> the virtual users' spamc at the port corresponding to the spamd with
> the --virtual-config-dir option.
This isi actually another approach which had crosse
Hi, the spamc manpage says under option -e
Note that there is a very slight chance mail will be lost here,
because if the fork-and-exec fails there’s no place to put the
mail message.
under what conditions would such a failure occur?
Is it not possible for spamc to await the successful com
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.02.1616 +0200]:
> I suggest that spamd is changed such that it disables virtual-config
> when the user name passed by spamc does not include an @ sign.
Sorry for the afterthought, but if the above is not a good idea,
maybe spa
On mail systems with virtual and local users, it's not easily
possible to run per-user spamc with user configuration. Either the
spamd process runs with --virtual-config, then local users need to
have directories under the virtual mailbox base directory, or you
run spamd without --virtual-confi
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.06.1401 +0200]:
> Regarding the issue I raised in February (to which I have not yet
> found an answer), you may be interested in checking out the last
> paragraph of http://blog.madduck.net/geek/2006.06.06-delayed-mail,
> w
also sprach Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.06.2021 +0200]:
> If you provide a full set of received headers that are being
> passed to SA, someone can help you out with the correct settings.
I am having difficulties recreating the problem. Sometimes SA will
happily include the RBL
also sprach Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.06.1848 +0200]:
> Really? That makes no sense to me. I don't see anything in your
> example header that we use as auth tokens. Actually, I don't see any
> auth tokens. What's to stop someone from connecting with SSL but not
> authen
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.06.1401 +0200]:
> Regarding the issue I raised in February (to which I have not yet
> found an answer)
I am sorry (again), I only just saw
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200602.mbox/[EMAIL
PROT
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.06.1401 +0200]:
> Regarding the issue I raised in February (to which I have not yet
> found an answer)
Sorry, that would be
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200602.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Regarding the issue I raised in February (to which I have not yet
found an answer), you may be interested in checking out the last
paragraph of http://blog.madduck.net/geek/2006.06.06-delayed-mail,
which also includes a link to postfix patch addressing the issue.
--
martin; (greeting
also sprach mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.02.23.2324 +0100]:
> how do you integrate SA with postfix?
I don't. It's called by procmail.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
invalid/expired pgp (sub)ke
Hi,
we have a bunch of users who use our SASL-enabled SMTP server to
relay their mail when on the road. This causes the following
Received header:
Received: from septumania (217-162-227-XXX.dclient.hispeed.ch
[217.162.227.XXX])
(using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
(
also sprach marti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.27.2107 +0200]:
> rewrite_subject 1
> subject_tag **SPAM**
rewrite_header subject **SPAM**
this could have been better highlighted. but oh well...
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*>
also sprach M.Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.13.0847 +0200]:
> send an empty email from your 2nd,3th,.. email address to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and you will only be allowed to post and you don't get any mail to this
> address
Great. I did search for this, i promise. ezmlm.org does not have it
also sprach Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1851 +0200]:
> hold on a minute guys -- this is a FAQ.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DoYouWantMySpam
/me sits back and sighs
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1420 +0200]:
> > Only forward spam that SpamAssassin does not currently
> > automatically detect correctly.
>
> All of it?
And with or without Bayesian stuff enabled?
--
martin; (greetings f
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1414 +0200]:
> Only forward spam that SpamAssassin does not currently
> automatically detect correctly.
All of it?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTE
also sprach jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1158 +0200]:
> Feed us spam, please. Avoid the middle man. It makes our response
> quicker.
Should I set up an autoreply to all my spam from the address of the
list, or simply forward all my spam?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart
also sprach Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1131 +0200]:
> Again, discussing religion is off-topic here, really.
I am not here to discuss religion but usability of your mailing
list.
But hey, since nobody seems to care, and mutt *does* provide for
broken setups (again), I'll shut up.
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1115 +0200]:
> It's been mentioned before several times on this list. Otherwise
> all I can say is that it's standard practice. :-)
Well, I am not here to argue, but apparently the anti-spam lists to
which I subscribe do not follow the standa
also sprach Nick Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1108 +0200]:
> It can, the option is called "envelope_from", and it's designed for
> situations like yours (and mine).
Oh wow, I am totally out of the loop. This certainly did not exist
when I hand-crafted my configuration file. Is there an
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.1030 +0200]:
> This only applies to spams that SpamAssassin does not already
> successfully detect, i.e. new, undetected classes.
Well, with Bayesian filtering, it is perfectly possible that many
spam filters already catch such a message.
> >
also sprach Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0946 +0200]:
> Who cares what software is being used ?
Well, if the software lowers the usability, people should care.
> This is not quantum physics, maybe mutt has some features to help
> you with the tough task of posting to this list ?
No, beca
also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0931 +0200]:
> Well in some cases, such as debugging an undetected spam, it's
> quite useful to see the entire message to determine whether the
> results can be duplicated on another system. If so, it can be
> a genuine bug in SA. So there are
also sprach Niek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0926 +0200]:
> man spamassassin.
Mh. Believe it or not, I never noticed the long descriptions to the
manpage. Sorry for the noise, and thanks for your answer.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.
Hi all,
First of all, thank you for SpamAssassin and this mailing list.
I have been able to extract many useful ideas in the past weeks.
I would like to voice my concern with the lists setup though.
Apparently it is subscriber-only (which is good), but as it uses
ezmlm, it falls short in exactly
stop forwarding your spam to lists! cut it to the bare essentials.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the
also sprach Keith Hackworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.11.1820 +0200]:
> I just got a gold-mine for surbl canidates "wanna-bes" in a single spam
> message. There's WAY too many domains listed below to add to SURBL
> through the web pages. Is there a "bulk add" option to add to the
> ws.surbl.or
When relearning a false-positive as ham, I wonder whether it's
necessary to invoke `spamassassin -rR` as well as `sa-learn --ham`,
or does either call the other?
What does `spamassassin -r` do exactly? Revoking spam could be
a plethora of things.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart
38 matches
Mail list logo
