I talked to Dave Hill's brother on Friday (he is the "listed"
"zone contact" for dailyhills.com in 'whois'. He is Dennis Hills, he promised
to speak to his brother that day, so the problem will hopefully have finally
ended. Obviously Dave Hills is an enthusiast - he even has a page on his
o the list, but aparently the problem hasn't been
solved...
Regards,
/Brian
-Original Message-
From: Vicki Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17. marts 2005 02:04
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: ****SPAM(7.2)**** rule didn't fire
SpamAssassin, running on "
Loren,
While true for vdrugz.net-munged, gh6.net-munged does not always
use a www. prefix. Also, now gh6.net-munged is caught by the SBL, 4 SURBLs,
and completewhois (if you use it). I get 14.6 points for just the bare
domain name. vdrugz.net-munged is caught by the SBL and 4 SU
Hi!
gh6.net-munged, don't the SURBLs have this one yet? Another from
the taiwanmedialtd.com-munged group (two new domains a day - time for
Spamhaus to take notice; Also they seem to hace given up on the Turkish
address as on last week).
gh6 .net is listed in about every SURBL list. If you
gh6.net-munged, don't the SURBLs have this one yet? Another from
the taiwanmedialtd.com-munged group (two new domains a day - time for
Spamhaus to take notice; Also they seem to hace given up on the Turkish
address as on last week).
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Vicki Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Did you restart spamd?
>
> N.
Good, bad, or indifferent the rule may be this is probably the reason
it did not fire at all. Restart spamd after changing rules.
service spamassassin restart
That works for Mandrake, RedHat, and I believe for SUSE. D
At 18:12 -0800 03/16/2005, Jeff Chan wrote:
>
>Don't make a rule, use SURBLs. This one is listed five times
>over:
Well, yes, good idea. But.
As you're already aware, I'm (somehow) not able to do that. Different
thread...
Besides, it's actually only a coincidental d
Vicki Brown wrote:
At 17:57 -0800 03/16/2005, Loren Wilton wrote:
Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
How are you running SA?
spamd -d -c
at system startup
then, from procmailrc, I push each message through
| /usr/local/bin/spamc -s 256000 -t 60
Did you resta
At 17:57 -0800 03/16/2005, Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
>
>How are you running SA?
spamd -d -c
at system startup
then, from procmailrc, I push each message through
| /usr/local/bin/spamc -s 256000 -t 60
>Did you restart spamd?
N
At 08:03 PM 3/16/2005, Vicki Brown wrote:
Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
This rule is in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
body CF_BAD_URL4 /www\.(vdrugz|gh6)\.net/i
score CF_BAD_URL4 10.0
describe CF_BAD_URL4 .net Junk site
I received a piece of m
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 5:03:42 PM, Vicki Brown wrote:
> Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
> This rule is in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> body CF_BAD_URL4 /www\.(vdrugz|gh6)\.net/i
> score CF_BAD_URL4 10.0
> describe CF_BAD_URL4 .net Ju
> Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
How are you running SA? Did you restart spamd? In many setups SA is
persistant, and needs to be explicitly reloaded in some way or other to
reload the modified rules.
Did you run spamassassin --lint from the console on your r
Ok. What totally minless dumb thing did I do that I just can't see?
This rule is in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
body CF_BAD_URL4 /www\.(vdrugz|gh6)\.net/i
score CF_BAD_URL4 10.0
describe CF_BAD_URL4 .net Junk site
I received a piece of mail containing the string
http://www
13 matches
Mail list logo
