On 12/04/2008 01:49 Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples from
my mail server:
* PO1786
* PO 42111
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples
from my mail server:
*
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
\b matches a zero-length word boundary. This means that one side
is a word character and the other side is not. Word characters
are defined as alphanumeric plus _. So the only option in your
list that would cause a problem is PO12345.
Try
Ray Jette wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good
at regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real
examples from my mail server:
* PO1786
*
Ray Jette wrote:
mouss wrote:
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you
testing
the rule, err,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
Then I need numbers and letters - [0-9a-z]\{1,10\} - I may need need this.
Don't escape the curlies.
Does this need to support alphanumeric POs? The rules provided so far
likely won't do that.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
The following looks like it will work. Does any one see any reasons why this
would not work?
/\bPO ?s?:?#?\d{0,10}?[a-z]{0,5}?/i
The order of your optional bits will be respected, and there's not a v
or apostrophe in there, which was in one of your
Matt Garretson a écrit :
This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
or
Subject =~ /\bPO\W.*\d+/i
mouss a écrit :
Matt Garretson a écrit :
This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
or
Subject =~ /\bPO\W.*\d+/i
Thanks to John for
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative scoring rule
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the following:
PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
In REs, the asterisk '*' is a quantifier, not a wildcard as it is with
the shell, and means zero or more
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
In REs, the asterisk '*' is a quantifier, not a wildcard as it is with
the shell, and
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
Btw, you need to escape the hash '#', not because this is an RE, but
because it is Perl. :)
You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using hash
characters for the RE boundary markers.
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score
Please note that you do *not* need to specify all variations explicitly,
if you actually want to match *anything* that starts with PO...
Thanks for the information I will make sure to read it. I am going to
try /\bPO\b now and see if it helps.
Since this isn't your first attempt to write
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please note that you do *not* need to specify all variations explicitly,
if you actually want to match *anything* that starts with PO...
Thanks for the information I will make sure to read it. I am going to
try /\bPO\b now and see if it helps.
Since this
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:35 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Btw, you need to escape the hash '#', not because this is an RE, but
because it is Perl. :)
You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using hash
characters for the RE boundary markers.
Rather than trying to catch FPs like this, I first would investigate why
any need for this in the place. *Why* are your hams looking that spammy?
Which rules do they trigger?
I have users reporting missing e-mails but when i ask for specifics for
the messages they never have them. I
Thanks for all the help. I am still having issues. Let me try to explain
a little more. Subjects can contain the following
PO random #s
POrandom #s
PO# random #s
PO#random #s
PO # random #s
PO #random #s
I can match PO with /\bPO/i but this does not fill my requirements.
I need to be able to
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the following:
PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative scoring rule that
Ray Jette wrote:
PO random #s
POrandom #s
PO# random #s
PO#random #s
PO # random #s
PO #random #s
Try:
Subject =~ /PO ?\#? ?\d+/i
If you don't need case insensitivity, remove the trailing 'i'.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:48 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Thanks again.
I am using the following rule:
/\bPO(?:\b|\d)/i
This rule working when matching 'PO' but it will not match 'po'. It ends
in a /i so I can't see why this would not work.
The rule is just fine, and it does match lower case,
Matt Garretson wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
PO random #s
POrandom #s
PO# random #s
PO#random #s
PO # random #s
PO #random #s
Try:
Subject =~ /PO ?\#? ?\d+/i
If you don't need case insensitivity, remove the trailing 'i'.
Thanks for the reply. I tryed to use Subject ~
That
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:20 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
I am having a lot of issues with this. Sorry but my regex skills are not
very good. I'm trying to learn through. This is a skill I need to learn.
I decided to start at the beginning and build the expression up from
there. I have the
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
I sent to messages from yahoo. One with a subject of PO and the other
Ray Jette wrote:
Thanks for all the help. I am still having issues. Let me try to
explain a little more. Subjects can contain the following
PO random #s
POrandom #s
PO# random #s
PO#random #s
PO # random #s
PO #random #s
I can match PO with /\bPO/i but this does not fill my requirements.
I
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
I sent to messages from yahoo. One with a
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:06 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
[ *snipp* ]
I reset the daemon. How do I cann spamassassin with the message. I'm not
sure how to create a message from the server with out sending one.
If all else fails, just save the message out of your MUA.
You can then test with the
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
I sent to
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:35 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Btw, you need to escape the hash '#', not because this is an RE,
but because it is Perl. :)
You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using
hash
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:06 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
[ *snipp* ]
I reset the daemon. How do I cann spamassassin with the message. I'm not
sure how to create a message from the server with out sending one.
If all else fails, just save the message out of your
mouss wrote:
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
mouss wrote:
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
Ray Jette wrote:
I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO
and the other with po. The rule fired on both.
When receiving mail from the outside the rule only fires on PO and not
po. Is there any reason for this to happen?
Sure. There are two reasons this could
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:55 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO and
the other with po. The rule fired on both.
Err, this is bad, isn't it?
What rule *exactly* are you talking about? Copy-n-paste it from the cf
file. What file name does
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:11 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO and
the other with po. The rule fired on both.
Err, this is bad, isn't it?
Doh! Ignore that line. A brain-fart made me read with no.
--
char *t=[EMAIL
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:06 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
[ *snipp* ]
If all else fails, just save the message out of your MUA.
You can then test with the saved file and investigate the output:
spamassassin message.file |
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 12/2/2008 3:07 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Rule to catch PO#
Ray Jette wrote:
I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO
and the other with po. The rule fired on both.
When receiving mail from the outside the rule
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 12/2/2008 2:43 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Rule to catch PO#
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:35 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Btw, you need to escape the hash '#', not because
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 20:09 -0500, Raymond Jette wrote:
I am using:
/bPO(?:\b ?#?|\d)/i
I asked you more than once, if you --lint check your configuration. This
answers it. You do NOT.
My rules is not listed.
Yes.
You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Raymond Jette wrote:
I am using:
/bPO(?:\b ?#?|\d)/i
You're missing a backslash in front of that first b. Others have already
commented on the hashmark.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 08:53 -0500, Kevin Windham wrote:
Is there a ruleset for encoded URLs or addresses? I have some examples
I can send, but so far I tried to send this email twice with the
example URLs, and it never makes it to the list, so I'm guessing
someone has some rules in place
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:25 AM, ram wrote:
Use a pastebin to paste the entire mail and send us the the URL.
Here is the email.
http://pastebin.com/m4d55a610
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Windham wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:25 AM, ram wrote:
Use a pastebin to paste the entire mail and send us the the URL.
Here is the email.
http://pastebin.com/m4d55a610
Thanks,
Kevin
Not sure what you mean by encoded - the fact it's part of an html
formatted message?
Anyway,
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
Kevin Windham wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:25 AM, ram wrote:
Use a pastebin to paste the entire mail and send us the the URL.
Here is the email.
http://pastebin.com/m4d55a610
Thanks,
Kevin
Not sure what you mean by encoded - the fact it's
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Kevin Windham wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
Not sure what you mean by encoded
I just mean that the URLs look like they are encoded to capture identity.
I would suggest tagged might be a better way to express that than
encoded.
--
John
Kevin Windham wrote:
The other sign is the encoded img tags. I can't recall seeing a regular
site use img tags that are encoded with no meaningful name.
I take it you've never looked at the HTML code for, say, Flickr or
Amazon? A *lot* of dynamic websites will use a catalog number (or
On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Kelson wrote:
Kevin Windham wrote:
The other sign is the encoded img tags. I can't recall seeing a
regular site use img tags that are encoded with no meaningful name.
I take it you've never looked at the HTML code for, say, Flickr or
Amazon? A *lot* of
That was discussed within the past week, check the mailing list archives.
thanks - i have resolved this now
Rejaine Monteiro wrote ... (8/1/2008 1:40 PM):
Hi all
How can I create a generic rule to block any e-mail with links to
dangerous files ?
Like http://.zip or http://***.exe or ***.doc.exe etc...
This is one I wrote to deal with a large influx of Storm Worm's that got
through once.
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 14:40 -0300, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Hi all
How can I create a generic rule to block any e-mail with links to
dangerous files ?
Easy, just ask those folks related to tools in your mail processing
chain that actually can block mail. SA does not. SA tags mail, it does
note: i'm not talking about block *attached* files .. (my
qmail-scanner already do this..)
i need a rule to targed as spam e-mail with *links to* dangerous files..
Karsten Bräckelmann escreveu:
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 14:40 -0300, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
Hi all
How can I create a
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 15:01 -0300, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
note: i'm not talking about block *attached* files .. (my
qmail-scanner already do this..)
i need a rule to targed as spam e-mail with *links to* dangerous files..
Yes, I did understand that, and that's exactly what I discussed
OK..
Sorry for my bad english ... Thank you for the tip..!
Karsten Bräckelmann escreveu:
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 15:01 -0300, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
note: i'm not talking about block *attached* files .. (my
qmail-scanner already do this..)
i need a rule to targed as spam e-mail with
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Rejaine Monteiro wrote:
note: i'm not talking about block *attached* files .. (my qmail-scanner
already do this..)
Oops. I misread your question then.
i need a rule to targed as spam e-mail with *links to* dangerous files..
Here's what I use:
uri
John GALLET wrote:
Re,
Anyway, these are the patterns I tried to code in FR_SPAMISLEGAL and
FR_HOWTOUNSUBSCRIBE, plus one I considered too generic (if you can't
read this mail in html, click here).
It might be worth collecting more ham that includes any such common
text -- or even
Yet Another Ninja a écrit :
If these are hit rates with a very minimal daily corpus, don't know if
the present ruleset is ready for production unless you have 0 tolerance
for any bulk, period
I'm afraid I must agree. I don't have a confirmed and sorted corpus per
se, but after a single
On Dienstag, 24. Juni 2008 John Wilcock wrote:
with just a bit of fine tuning
I guess John Gallet needs a bigger corpus, maybe you could share some
ham/spam with him. He does the work to create the rules, and with
better corpus the rules will become better. I know this, I maintain the
GERMAN
John GALLET a écrit :
I think I have a newbye simple problem of philosophy/strategy: my
approach, for what it's worth, was that I flag anything that contains
some unsubscribe links and French law reminders because anyway all the
ones I receive are spam, and I add the opt-in mailing/newsletter
John GALLET writes:
Hi,
You run seek-phrases-in-corpus over the 2 corpora, and it'll spit out
the patterns; you can then write rules based on these.
I did so, the results are interesting, though I do not really know where
to go from there. If I take the first 50 best patterns and
Re,
Anyway, these are the patterns I tried to code in FR_SPAMISLEGAL and
FR_HOWTOUNSUBSCRIBE, plus one I considered too generic (if you can't
read this mail in html, click here).
It might be worth collecting more ham that includes any such common
text -- or even _generating_ mails along those
John GALLET writes:
Re,
Anyway, these are the patterns I tried to code in FR_SPAMISLEGAL and
FR_HOWTOUNSUBSCRIBE, plus one I considered too generic (if you can't
read this mail in html, click here).
It might be worth collecting more ham that includes any such common
text -- or even
Justin Mason a écrit :
John GALLET writes:
Well, thanks for writing it. I think its main weak point for French and
other accented languages is handling the different encodings for a same
char with an accent, some kind of synonyms list. The same letter, say a
with an accent, can be misspelled
John Wilcock writes:
Justin Mason a écrit :
John GALLET writes:
Well, thanks for writing it. I think its main weak point for French and
other accented languages is handling the different encodings for a same
char with an accent, some kind of synonyms list. The same letter, say a
Hi,
First of all, thanks to Justin for patiently helping me to install
mass-check and pointing me in the right direction. I will try to run the
algorithms tonight to see what they come up with.
In the meantime, you can find a hit-frequencies report at:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, John GALLET wrote:
First of all, thanks to Justin for patiently helping me to install
mass-check and pointing me in the right direction.
Applause for Justin! This is the sort of thing we need to see for many
more specialized spam categories...
I will try to run the
John GALLET a écrit :
Any feedback on the results (not enough in corpus, bad rules, good
rules, etc.) appreciated.
Looking at the rules, I'm worried about false positives on genuine
opt-in advertising. I have a number of users who choose to receive all
kinds of advertising blurb, so I'll run
Re,
Looking at the rules, I'm worried about false positives on genuine opt-in
advertising. I have a number of users who choose to receive all kinds of
advertising blurb,
This is one of the reasons why I did not hunt for click here and if you
can't see this email in html. Now correct me if I
Thanks for taking this burden upon yourself. One other thing you should be
prepared to do, if you're willing to devote long-term responsibility to these
rules, is to provide sa-update-compatible feeds of your dynamic rules. This
is another thing that Justin can probably help you with.
I am
On 6/23/2008 4:36 PM, John GALLET wrote:
Hi,
First of all, thanks to Justin for patiently helping me to install
mass-check and pointing me in the right direction. I will try to run the
algorithms tonight to see what they come up with.
In the meantime, you can find a hit-frequencies report
Hi,
You run seek-phrases-in-corpus over the 2 corpora, and it'll spit out
the patterns; you can then write rules based on these.
I did so, the results are interesting, though I do not really know where
to go from there. If I take the first 50 best patterns and strip off the
obvious
I still miss samples for two rules, even if I did had hits according to
/var/spool/maillog I did not save them.
I added a sample for the FR_NOTSPAM rule, and I removed the
FR_YOURELUCKY rule as I see other forms of the text getting through so
it is not efficient. On the other hand, nearly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:10 PM
To: John GALLET
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
...omissis...
by the way, if you're reasonably perl-capable, it might
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:10 PM
To: John GALLET
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
...omissis...
by the way, if you're
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:28 PM
To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
-Original
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:28 PM
To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
Giampaolo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:49 PM
To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
...omissis...
Ok, I see I have to get a copy
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:49 PM
To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
...omissis
John GALLET writes:
Hi,
This is my first post on this list and first ruleset, so please point me
to the right place/documents if I am doing anything wrong.
According to a search of this list on markmail.org, there have been few
subjects about spam in French and (no disrespect meant) I
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, John GALLET
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
This is my first post on this list and first ruleset, so please point me to
the right place/documents if I am doing anything wrong.
According to a search of this list on markmail.org, there have been few
subjects
Hi,
I was able to access the URL you mentioned, but not all of the files
below it. I received:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /spam/FR_PAYLESSTAXES.txt on this server.
Sorry guys, only the ruleset file (the one I tried, of course) was
readable, all the non empty spam samples
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 2:52 AM
To: ML spamassassin
Subject: Re: rule based on time
John Hardin escreveu:
Yes. Write a regex that checks the time from of the Received
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
Hello Guys,
Is it possible to write a rule that matches based on the current
time of the host running spamassassin ?? I would like to simply add,
let's say, 1 point for EVERY message received during night, for
example, 9PM until 6AM.
is that
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 11:41, Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
Hello Guys,
Is it possible to write a rule that matches based on the current
time of the host running spamassassin ?? I would like to simply add,
let's say, 1 point for EVERY message received during night, for
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:08 PM
To: Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães
Cc: ML spamassassin
Subject: Re: rule based on time
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
Hello Guys,
Is it possible to write a rule
-Original Message-
From: Martin Gregorie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:45 PM
To: ML spamassassin
Subject: Re: rule based on time
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 11:41, Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
Hello Guys,
Is it possible to write a rule
Sorry, this is wrong.
See my later post.
Giampaolo
-Original Message-
From: Giampaolo Tomassoni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 3:03 PM
To: 'ML spamassassin'
Subject: RE: rule based on time
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL
On Sun, June 15, 2008 14:08, Matt Kettler wrote:
You'd have to write a plugin for it.
or use some handcrafted regexp's :-)
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 07:41 -0300, Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
Hello Guys,
Is it possible to write a rule that matches based on the current
time of the host running spamassassin ?? I would like to simply add,
let's say, 1 point for EVERY message received during night, for
John Hardin escreveu:
Yes. Write a regex that checks the time from of the Received: header
that your MTA adds.
Post a sample Received: header from your MTA and I'll take a shot at it.
Received line added by my MTA, which is a postfix, would be
something like:
Received: from
On Fri, March 21, 2008 20:46, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Generally speaking, blocking that stuff in the MTA is the right/better way to
go.
if body is 100M then you accept it before you can test for it :(
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:11:25PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /filename\=\as\.zip\/
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /^filename\=\[a-z]{2}\.zip\/i
If you're trying to match the filename in an attachment, header isn't going
to get you anywhere.
On Wed, April 16, 2008 16:16, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:11:25PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /filename\=\as\.zip\/
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /^filename\=\[a-z]{2}\.zip\/i
If you're trying to match the filename in an
On Fri, March 21, 2008 18:41, Martin Gregorie wrote:
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /filename\=\as\.zip\/
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /^filename\=\[a-z]{2}\.zip\/i
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Martin Gregorie wrote:
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /filename\=\as\.zip\/
I sincerely doubt SA treats MIME body part headers as message headers,
though I would be pleasantly surprised to hear otherwise.
Try a rawbody rule.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 16:56, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Martin Gregorie wrote:
header MG_LINK2 Content-Disposition =~ /filename\=\as\.zip\/
I sincerely doubt SA treats MIME body part headers as message headers,
though I would be pleasantly surprised to hear otherwise.
Try
501 - 600 of 928 matches
Mail list logo
