Hi Matthias,
Thanks for you input with this, I will be reading it soon.
Cheers
Keith
-Original Message-
From: Matthias Haegele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 May 2007 07:40
To: Keith De Souza
Subject: Re: SA Not Scoring
Keith De Souza schrieb:
Hi Jason,
Thanks for this, I'm
Hi Matthias,
Many thanks for this, I'm very new to SA and your distribution is much
appreciated.
Cheers
Keith
-Original Message-
From: Matthias Haegele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 May 2007 10:08
To: Keith De Souza
Subject: Re: SA Not Scoring
Keith De Souza schrieb:
Hi
Dear all,
I have a very rare problem: if I do not use the SARE rules everythings
works ok but... If I run
sa-update
Then spamassassin stops working.
If I check it with
spamassassin -D spam-mail.txt
Works ok, but if I use
spamc spam-mail.txt
Shows the spamassassin version on the
Max de Mendizabal schrieb:
Dear all,
I have a very rare problem: if I do not use the SARE rules everythings
works ok but... If I run
sa-update
Then spamassassin stops working.
If I check it with
spamassassin -D spam-mail.txt
Works ok, but if I use
spamc spam-mail.txt
Shows the
Hello,
I'm new to this mailing list, please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong
with submitting
A problem here.
I'm running SpamAssassin version 3.1.8 running on Perl version 5.8.8 the OS
that is running on
Fedora Core 5. The problem that I'm having is every so often when mail come
Keith De Souza wrote:
Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:42:53 BST:21005: SA: required_hits ? /
sa_quarantine +0.01 / sa_delete +2.4
Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:42:53 BST:21005: SA: finished scan of dir
/var/spool/qmailscan/tmp/ssdd117778517072221005 in 600.013176 secs
- hits=?/?
Sat, 28 Apr 2007
-Original Message-
From: Jason Haar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 May 2007 00:31
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: SA Not Scoring
Keith De Souza wrote:
Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:42:53 BST:21005: SA: required_hits ? /
sa_quarantine +0.01 / sa_delete +2.4
Sat, 28
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:40, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed
everyone else's upgrade on the list. Not sure just what went wrong.
Sean Doherty wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:40, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed
everyone else's upgrade on the list. Not sure just what went wrong.
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:52, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 04:40 PM 11/3/2004, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed everyone
else's upgrade on the list. Not sure
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 14:14, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Sean Doherty wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:40, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed
everyone
At 02:19 PM 11/4/2004 +, Sean Doherty wrote:
Matt, does this mean that even if trusted_networks is set in local.cf,
SpamAssassin will fire the ALL_TRUSTED rule even if it can't parse
the received headers? i.e. Since there are no parsable received
headers, SA will assume that all must have been
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 02:19 PM 11/4/2004 +, Sean Doherty wrote:
Matt, does this mean that even if trusted_networks is set in local.cf,
SpamAssassin will fire the ALL_TRUSTED rule even if it can't parse
the received headers? i.e. Since there are no parsable received
headers, SA will assume
At 09:54 AM 11/4/2004 -0500, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Yes I just submitted a bug on the matter.. Currently ALL_TRUSTED fires
whenever there are no untrusted relays detected.. However, it fails to
check that any trusted relays exist...
I opened this bug to suggest a fix for ALL_TRUSTED:
Sean Doherty wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 14:14, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Sean Doherty wrote:
I will look into that, I didn't set it as I want no network to be
trusted. I'll reread what I can find on that.
Just set trusted_network 127.0.0.1
Yes, this fixed it.
Since you hit ALL_TRUSTED certain other
Thanks everyone, testing with several messages and comparing to 2.64
scores looks good now.
Three issues,
1) My test message was munged and SA had problems parsing the headers.
Used unmangled messages and SA parsed them fine.
2) Set trusted networks to 127.0.0.1, so no network is trusted.
3)
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 15:04, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Check out trusted_network section of Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
i.e no RBL tests on trusted networks.
If you're running with DNS checks enabled, SpamAssassin includes code
to infer your trusted networks on the fly, so this may not be
At 10:17 AM 11/4/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
JMHO, but shouldn't all networks be considered untrusted unless a user
specifies otherwise?
I got to agree with you there - especially given that the inference
algorithm doesn't work in every environment.
Unfortunately this only solves one aspect of the
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 10:17 AM 11/4/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
JMHO, but shouldn't all networks be considered untrusted unless a user
specifies otherwise?
I got to agree with you there - especially given that the inference
algorithm doesn't work in every environment.
Unfortunately this only
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 10:17 AM 11/4/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
JMHO, but shouldn't all networks be considered untrusted unless a user
specifies otherwise?
I got to agree with you there - especially given that the inference
algorithm doesn't work in every environment.
Unfortunately this only
At 11:14 AM 11/4/2004, Jim Maul wrote:
While i agree that trusting no one doesnt really solve the problem, I dont
believe it is just as bad as trusting everyone. Trusting
everyone stops other rules from firing and adds atleast -2.something to
every message. This seems far worse than trusting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sean Doherty writes:
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 15:04, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Check out trusted_network section of Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
i.e no RBL tests on trusted networks.
If you're running with DNS checks enabled, SpamAssassin includes code
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed
everyone else's upgrade on the list. Not sure just what went wrong.
DAve
Here is a sample output of spamassassin -D test_spam (a known spam
At 04:40 PM 11/3/2004, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed everyone
else's upgrade on the list. Not sure just what went wrong.
DAve
Here is a sample output of
24 matches
Mail list logo
