Re: SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-11 Thread jdow
From: Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Zanker wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:52:36 +0100: Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff. It does not relate to SURBL. It relates to rules, no matter in which *.cf file they are in

Re: SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-10 Thread Mike Zanker
On 09 October 2004 18:40 -0400 Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to tell you what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't from SpamAssassin itself. ;) I believe that it is a bug in SA 3.0. This is a fresh

Re[2]: SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-10 Thread Marcos Saint'Anna
Hello Mike, Almost the same thing here... but it's the USER_IN_WHITELIST that's making me nuts. My configuration files have no whitelist_from... but in the detection description the USER_IN_WHITELIST is always there... Best regards -- Marcos Saint'Anna [EMAIL PROTECTED] You wrote: MZ

Re: SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-10 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Mike Zanker wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:52:36 +0100: Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff. It does not relate to SURBL. It relates to rules, no matter in which *.cf file they are in /etc/mail/spamassassin. The rulename is

SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-09 Thread Mike Zanker
Today I received a virus (Gibe-F) from an unknown e-mail address - it scored over 100 because of USER_IN_BLACKLIST. Now, I don't have any blacklists defined anywhere - in fact, SA is run only by MailScanner as user mail. So, this seems to be a false positive. Anyone else seen it happening?

Re: SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-09 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 09:09:12PM +0100, Mike Zanker wrote: scored over 100 because of USER_IN_BLACKLIST. Now, I don't have any blacklists defined anywhere So, this seems to be a false positive. Anyone else seen it happening? Well, yes you do. ;) There are no default blacklist entries in

Re: SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-09 Thread Mike Zanker
On 09 October 2004 16:19 -0400 Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, yes you do. ;) I do what? There are no default blacklist entries in SpamAssassin. Exactly, so where did it come from? Mike.

Re: SA 3.0 - USER_IN_BLACKLIST false positive?

2004-10-09 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:24:19PM +0100, Mike Zanker wrote: There are no default blacklist entries in SpamAssassin. Exactly, so where did it come from? Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to tell you what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't from