Re: Rules Updates

On Jan 27, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Björn Keil wrote: > I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1, installed via the Ubuntu 10.04 An ancient version of SA on a 6 year-old OS? -- A sadder and a wiser man he rose the morrow morn.

Re: Rules Updates

Am 27.01.2016 um 17:18 schrieb Björn Keil: I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1, installed via the Ubuntu 10.04 package system, and am trying to figure out how it determines which rules to use. It appears my SpamAssassin uses completely outdated rules, including DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, which queries a

Rules Updates

Hello, I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.1, installed via the Ubuntu 10.04 package system, and am trying to figure out how it determines which rules to use. It appears my SpamAssassin uses completely outdated rules, including DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, which queries a list which does not exist anymore and

Re: Rules updates

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Matt Kettler wrote: On 6/9/2010 12:11 PM, LuKreme wrote: On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote: Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated) Even better: Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only) or Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all)

Re: Rules updates

On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote: Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated) Even better: Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only) or Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all) -- I collect blondes and bottles. ~Marlowe

Re: Rules updates

On 8-Jun-2010, at 21:22, Alex wrote: Hi, We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without it!), but don't have that clearly

Re: Rules updates

Hi, It would be great if you could document exactly what features are exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5? All new rules. All current spam-fighting measures. Yes, I realize that. I was hoping for specifics.

Re: Rules updates

On 9-Jun-2010, at 10:25, Alex wrote: Hi, It would be great if you could document exactly what features are exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5? All new rules. All current spam-fighting measures. Yes, I

Re: Rules updates

On 6/9/2010 12:11 PM, LuKreme wrote: On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote: Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated) Even better: Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only) or Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all) Well, unsupported is an

Re: Rules updates

On 2010-05-21 at 03:09+02 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: 3.2.x is in maintenance, and gets emergency rule updates *exclusively*. As it has been for quite a long time. 3.3.x uses a new rule update model, and gets frequent updates. IFF the mass-check corpus is large

Re: Rules updates

On 6/8/2010 5:48 PM, James Ralston wrote: On 2010-05-21 at 03:09+02 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote: 3.2.x is in maintenance, and gets emergency rule updates *exclusively*. As it has been for quite a long time. 3.3.x uses a new rule update model, and gets frequent

Re: Rules updates

Hi,  We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without it!), but don't have that clearly documented either. It would be great if you

Re: Rules updates

On 6/8/2010 11:22 PM, Alex wrote: Hi, We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without it!), but don't have that clearly

Re: Rules updates

On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 21:34 -0400, Robert Palmer wrote: yum install insisted I have current version so I used cpan which got me to 3.3.1. Should I stop there or consider 3.3.2 or 3.4.x? http://spamassassin.apache.org/ Did you have a look there, yet? 3.3.1 is the latest stable release. 3.3.2

Rules updates

I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot of nasty spam coming through. Is it the case that the default rules are no longer being updated and are there any other recommended sources for anti-spam

Re: Rules updates

On 5/20/10 6:00 PM, Robert Palmer wrote: I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot of nasty spam coming through. just upgrade to SA 3.3.1 only current versions of SA have current rule updates.

Re: Rules updates

On fre 21 maj 2010 00:05:26 CEST, Michael Scheidell wrote On 5/20/10 6:00 PM, Robert Palmer wrote: I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot of nasty spam coming through. just upgrade to SA 3.3.1

Re: Rules updates

On Thu, May 20, 2010 4:26 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote: On fre 21 maj 2010 00:05:26 CEST, Michael Scheidell wrote On 5/20/10 6:00 PM, Robert Palmer wrote: I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot of

Re: Rules updates

On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 01:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot of nasty spam coming through. imho 3.2.5 is still latest stable Ignoring your (humble

Re: Rules updates

yum install insisted I have current version so I used cpan which got me to 3.3.1. Should I stop there or consider 3.3.2 or 3.4.x? Thanks On 5/20/2010 9:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 01:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and

Re: Rules updates

On fre 21 maj 2010 03:09:05 CEST, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote Ignoring your (humble or not) opinion for a second... 3.3.x is the latest stable. thanks for clearing up this mess :) 3.3.1 is not being stable here on gentoo, there is a few problems with spf check, and i will try to find where

Dostech Rules Updates Failing

I noticed that my channels were not updating from the master list over at DOStech... so I decided to rename my rules folder to .old and re-run sa-update I get the spamassassin master cf files, but on every other entry I get something similar to this: http: request failed: 404 Not Found:

Re: Dostech Rules Updates Failing

I'm investigating why now. The root cause I know... that mirror blew a power supply last night, so I moved it to a new server in a hurry at midnight. Apparently I messed up the config somewhere. Anywho... it's now working. Not the way I would like it to, but how it wants to. Daryl On

Re: sought rules updates

m http://www.netoyen.net/sa/sa-update.sh.txt m http://www.netoyen.net/sa/channel.conf They give 403 Forbidden.

Re: sought rules updates

jida...@jidanni.org a écrit : m http://www.netoyen.net/sa/sa-update.sh.txt m http://www.netoyen.net/sa/channel.conf They give 403 Forbidden. should be fixed now. sorry for the annoyance.

Re: sought rules updates

???AFAIK Justin is aware of this, and hopefully will have fixed it soon. :) On Wed, December 10, 2008 12:28, Justin Mason wrote: this should be fixed now, I think... On 15.12.08 03:12, Benny Pedersen wrote: [...] [746] dbg: http: GET request, http://yerp.org/rules/stage/320726402.tar.gz

Re: sought rules updates

On Wed, December 10, 2008 12:28, Justin Mason wrote: ???AFAIK Justin is aware of this, and hopefully will have fixed it soon. :) this should be fixed now, I think... [746] dbg: generic: lint check of site pre files succeeded, continuing with channel updates [746] dbg: channel: no

Re: sought rules updates

[746] dbg: generic: lint check of site pre files succeeded, continuing with channel updates [746] dbg: channel: no MIRRORED.BY file available [746] dbg: http: GET request, http://yerp.org/rules/MIRRORED.BY [746] dbg: channel: MIRRORED.BY file retrieved [746] dbg: channel: reading MIRRORED.BY

Re: sought rules updates

In article a64af57c-7838-455f-b529-669e95386...@kreme.com, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com writes The gpg installed on my FreeBSD does not have a man page (installed by ports for SA3.2.5, IIRC), just a --help which says the syntax is: Logically you have security/gnupg installed which means... %ls -l

Re: sought rules updates

My god, let it go, please! Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com

Re: sought rules updates

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:12 -0700, LuKreme wrote: On 11-Dec-2008, at 14:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: I read a hell of a lot of stuff about all this, and have been running SA since 2.mumble If you are a plug-n-play sysadmin, then no problem. If you are already well-versed in the

Re: sought rules updates

On 12-Dec-2008, at 07:20, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: If something doesn't work, please do at least think twice about the command that failed, *before* venting your broken syntax to the list. It wasn't *MY* broken syntax, that's the whole point. -- The other cats just think he's a tosser.

Re: sought rules updates

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org LuKreme wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:19:25 -0700: mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg gpg: error reading key: No public key I get the same, and without the path to a file I get the keys from the

Re: sought rules updates

mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg gpg: error reading key: No public key And another doc you didn't read before asking here, LuKreme... I get the same, and without the path to a file I get the keys from the global keyring which are non for SA. man gpg

Re: sought rules updates

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, LuKreme wrote: I'm still unclear on how the --gpgkey makes it more secure. If the file is signed, the signature is checked against the public key that I have in pubring.gpg. What does the gpgkey do? It indicates which key to use to check the signature. -- John Hardin

RE: sought rules updates

LuKreme wrote: On 10-Dec-2008, at 20:36, SM wrote: it's a hexadecimal number which identifies the key. And the source of that number is, evidently, a complete mystery. That's my point. I've seen lots of instructions like this: # wget http://somesite.tld/somepath/GPG.KEY # sudo

Re: sought rules updates

y Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Karsten Bräckelmann wrote on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:48:34 +0100: Hmm, mine doesn't. :) My package says gnupg-1.4.5-13. Instead that option's desc starts with List all keys from the public keyrings, or just the keys given on the command line. Yeah,

Re: sought rules updates

At 22:19 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote: I ssh to the server and then I sudo su (so I am sure I have discarded my own login environment, I do not normally do this) mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg gpg: error reading key: No public key gpg --no-default-keyring

Re: sought rules updates

Mouss wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:34:21 +0100: 90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net Thanks, for the tip, I wasn't aware of it. As I understand it helps URIBL to score on subdomains that it otherwise wouldn't check at all? Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive

Re: sought rules updates

RobertH wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:49:28 -0800: what ones did you keep? if you recall, any particular reason why? Hm, I checked and it seems I was wrong, partly. I still have them in the channels.txt for my sa-update. I removed them on some other machines partly because of memory

Re: sought rules updates

On 11-Dec-2008, at 07:39, Bowie Bailey wrote: LuKreme wrote: On 10-Dec-2008, at 20:36, SM wrote: it's a hexadecimal number which identifies the key. And the source of that number is, evidently, a complete mystery. That's my point. I've seen lots of instructions like this: # wget

RE: sought rules updates

LuKreme wrote: On 11-Dec-2008, at 07:39, Bowie Bailey wrote: It's almost like Just download this key file and you'll be fine. Don't worry about where it came from, just put it in your keyring. Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded it. And it came from

Re: sought rules updates

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 13:32 -0700, LuKreme wrote: It's almost like Just download this key file and you'll be fine. Don't worry about where it came from, just put it in your keyring. Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded it. And it came from the same

Re: sought rules updates

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 22:29 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 13:32 -0700, LuKreme wrote: Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded it. And it came from the same server as the rules are coming. The KeyID is coming from who knows where.

Re: sought rules updates

On 11-Dec-2008, at 14:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: ...or read the documentation. I read a hell of a lot of stuff about all this, and have been running SA since 2.mumble If you are a plug-n-play sysadmin, then no problem. If you are already well-versed in the vagaries of gpg, then

Re: sought rules updates

Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC): Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-) Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com

Re: sought rules updates

LuKreme wrote on Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:50:34 -0700: Geez there's a lot of them... and they look like they are very old, with last updated dates in 2005-2006 and none newer than Aug 2007. Right. I removed most if not all of the SARE rules on most machines some months ago with no ill effects.

Re: sought rules updates

Kai Schaetzl a écrit : LuKreme wrote on Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:50:34 -0700: Geez there's a lot of them... and they look like they are very old, with last updated dates in 2005-2006 and none newer than Aug 2007. Right. I removed most if not all of the SARE rules on most machines some

Re: sought rules updates

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 22:54 -0700, LuKreme wrote: On 9-Dec-2008, at 17:09, John Horne wrote: Try: sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel sought.rules.yerp.org Ok, that gives me no error (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). It sits for about 20-30 seconds and then I get a prompt

Re: sought rules updates

Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes: On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote: Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update. I believe this is due to the recent SSL cert update for

Re: sought rules updates

Justin Mason wrote: Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes: On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote: Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update. I believe this is due to the recent SSL

RE: sought rules updates

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes: On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote: Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update. I believe this is due

Re: sought rules updates

John Horne a écrit : On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 22:54 -0700, LuKreme wrote: On 9-Dec-2008, at 17:09, John Horne wrote: Try: sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel sought.rules.yerp.org Ok, that gives me no error (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). It sits for about 20-30 seconds and then

Re: sought rules updates

On 10-Dec-2008, at 01:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC): Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-) I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this

Re: sought rules updates

LuKreme a écrit : On 10-Dec-2008, at 01:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC): Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-) I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to

Re: sought rules updates

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org LuKreme wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:51:47 -0700: I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still not found that information. I've seen the

RE: sought rules updates

Right. I removed most if not all of the SARE rules on most machines some months ago with no ill effects. Kai what ones did you keep? if you recall, any particular reason why? - rh

Re: sought rules updates

At 13:51 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote: I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still not found that information. I've seen the IDs in others posts, sure, but where do they originate? sa-update uses GPG

Re: sought rules updates

On 10-Dec-2008, at 20:36, SM wrote: At 13:51 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote: I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still not found that information. I've seen the IDs in others posts, sure, but where do

Re: sought rules updates

At 20:39 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote: And the source of that number is, evidently, a complete mystery. That's my point. I've seen lots of instructions like this: # wget http://somesite.tld/somepath/GPG.KEY # sudo sa-update --import GPG.KEY # sudo sa-update --gpgkey 0E28B3DC --channel

Re: sought rules updates

On 10-Dec-2008, at 22:18, SM wrote: At 20:39 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote: And the source of that number is, evidently, a complete mystery. That's my point. I've seen lots of instructions like this: # wget http://somesite.tld/somepath/GPG.KEY # sudo sa-update --import GPG.KEY # sudo sa-update

Re: sought rules updates

LuKreme wrote: I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still not found that information. I've seen the IDs in others posts, sure, but where do they originate? Even searching the wiki (which just

Re: sought rules updates

I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is current? I have dbg: dns: 5.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org = 709395, parsed as 709395 showing here. This even after a dns crash and replace. Nigel On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:39:11 +0100, Leveau Stanislas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi

Re: sought rules updates

the current Sought version : # UPDATE version 320722979 and spamassassin : # UPDATE version 709395 I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is current? I have dbg: dns: 5.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org = 709395, parsed as 709395 showing here. This even after a dns

Re: sought rules updates

On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 20:00 -0600, Chris wrote: Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update. I believe this is due to the recent SSL cert update for ASF svn. Changed without a heads up in advance... :(

Re: sought rules updates

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 08:51 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is current? Nigel, Chris wasn't talking about the stock rule-set, but the third-party JM_SOUGHT rules. The latter usually are updated multiple times a day, while the stock

Re: sought rules updates

On 9-Dec-2008, at 08:15, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 08:51 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is current? Nigel, Chris wasn't talking about the stock rule-set, but the third-party JM_SOUGHT rules. The latter

Re: sought rules updates

LuKreme wrote: On 9-Dec-2008, at 08:15, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 08:51 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: I haven't seen an update from sa-update in months. What version is current? Nigel, Chris wasn't talking about the stock rule-set, but the third-party JM_SOUGHT rules.

Re: sought rules updates

On 9-Dec-2008, at 12:48, LuKreme wrote: I'm thtinking the old rules like 70_sc_top200.cf etc should all be removed? Just to be clear, all I have currently active is: -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel3278 Dec 9 12:30 dkim.cf -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel1749 Dec 7 17:08 init.pre drwx-- 2

Re: sought rules updates

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Chris wrote: Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update. Ditto here. [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ ll /var/lib/spamassassin/3.001008/sought_rules_yerp_org total 320 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root

Re: sought rules updates

On 9-Dec-2008, at 12:58, Bill Landry wrote: Both the official SA rules and 3rd party rules can be updated via sa-update. For information and instructions, see: http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt Ah yes, I remember a lot of those from the days run rjd. Geez

Re: sought rules updates

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 16:50 -0700, LuKreme wrote: On 9-Dec-2008, at 12:58, Bill Landry wrote: Both the official SA rules and 3rd party rules can be updated via sa-update. For information and instructions, see: http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt Ah yes, I

Re: sought rules updates

On 9-Dec-2008, at 17:09, John Horne wrote: Try: sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel sought.rules.yerp.org Ok, that gives me no error (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). It sits for about 20-30 seconds and then I get a prompt back. But as far as I can tell, nothing has changed.

Re: sought rules updates

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, LuKreme wrote: (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). Not too hard: Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page (which is linked off of http://spamassassin.apache.org/): http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ The very first link provided this:

sought rules updates

Has anyone seen any updates to the sought rules lately? It seems like it's been about 4 or 5 days now since I've seen any via sa-update. -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C pgpqvBQu4d9qG.pgp Description: PGP signature

How to properly teach SA to recognise the spam that is still getting through, despite the rules updates

Hi, Firstly: I'm new to this list and also pretty new to SA in general. I did try to find the answers to my questions in the FAQ, but haven't succeeded beyond all doubt at doing so. I do hope, however, that I'm not flogging a dead horse with my below questions (which appear at the end of the

RE: How to properly teach SA to recognise the spam that is still getting through, despite the rules updates

Olaf Greve wrote: Hi, Firstly: I'm new to this list and also pretty new to SA in general. I did try to find the answers to my questions in the FAQ, but haven't succeeded beyond all doubt at doing so. I do hope, however, that I'm not flogging a dead horse with my below questions (which

Re: How to properly teach SA to recognise the spam that is still getting through, despite the rules updates

Olaf Greve wrote: The way I perform my updates are as follows: Cron call: 23 3 * * 2,5 /usr/local/bin/sa-update --allowplugins --gpgkeyfile /root/sa_pgp_keys --channelfile /root/sa_channels /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd.sh restart /dev/null (yes, I realise spamd is not actually used

RE: How to properly teach SA to recognise the spam that is still getting through, despite the rules updates

Jari Fredriksson wrote: Olaf Greve wrote: The way I perform my updates are as follows: Cron call: 23 3 * * 2,5 /usr/local/bin/sa-update --allowplugins --gpgkeyfile /root/sa_pgp_keys --channelfile /root/sa_channels /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd.sh restart /dev/null

Re: How to properly teach SA to recognise the spam that is still getting through, despite the rules updates

Hi guys, Thanks for the answers! I feel really stupid now for not having realised this; I was under the impression that amavisd-new wouldn't need a restart, but sure enough check the following lines from the amavis.log file after restarting the daemon manually: Feb 28 21:15:32 servername

Re: How to properly teach SA to recognise the spam that is still getting through, despite the rules updates

Olaf Greve wrote: Hi, Firstly: I'm new to this list and also pretty new to SA in general. I did try to find the answers to my questions in the FAQ, but haven't succeeded beyond all doubt at doing so. I do hope, however, that I'm not flogging a dead horse with my below questions (which

Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI

On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 08:33:10PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: I have updated the RDJ snippet for uri.cf to point to the new uri0.cf file, and added snippets for the other files as well. I believe I've done this correctly, but as I don't use and cannot test RDJ, I can't be sure. I'm

RE: [SARE] Rules updates: URI

: George Georgalis Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:15 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI Regarding the comment on too much disclosure in the logs, there is nothing keeping spammers from diff-ing the cf files, I would refer to the quote Rogues are very keen

Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI

-Original Message- From: George Georgalis Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:15 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI Regarding the comment on too much disclosure in the logs, there is nothing keeping spammers from diff-ing the cf files, I would refer

RE: [SARE] Rules updates: URI

-Original Message- From: George Georgalis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 1:10 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: [SARE] Rules updates: URI -Original Message- From: George Georgalis Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:15 AM To: users

[SARE] Rules updates: URI

Just a quick note that SARE has published new URI rules files. New files 70_sare_uri0.cf, 70_sare_uri1.cf, 70_sare_uri3.cf, and 70_sare_uri_eng.cf replace the previous file 70_sare_uri.cf The old file has been left in our http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/ directory, unchanged. We expect to