ced back with a 10.4 score. No clue why, there's no spam quotes here,
only one URIBL listed domain mentioned in the body report. One domain alone
shouldn't be >10, even if it's listed in every URIBL in the universe)
Chad, based on the difference in hits on the two scores below
y URIBL in the universe)
Chad, based on the difference in hits on the two scores below, it sounds
like you're double-scanning the email. Make sure you don't have an MTA
integration that's scanning the mail before it gets to procmail.
Also, try temporarily disabling both spamc
Missed including the list on the return ;)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Nov 23, 2005 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Inconsistent Spam scores?
To: jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 11/23/05, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You need to setup
You need to setup your trusted_networks and internal_networks values
to get rid of ALL_TRUSTED. These values are usually stored in the
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file. Read the wiki regarding the
trusted_networks setup.
Trusted_networks is merely a short list of mailers from when you
directl
Hello!
I've been googling and searching this list for a little over 2 hours
now and have yet to find this problem, or a fix for it. If there is
something obvious I'm missing, feel free to point me in that
direction, but here goes:
I recieve Spam from "Doctor" with the subject "Ultimate Online Ph
On Montag, 17. Oktober 2005 16:52 Spam Admin wrote:
> So, to temporarily resolve this, I bumped our kill_level to 5.9 and
> am monitoring it; my false positives have pretty much disappeared. Of
> course, I've seen a *slight* increase in fasle negatives versus 2.63,
> so I'll be tuning.
I use 5.0 (
ing v2.63), so any advice is
> sincerely appreciated.
I have been marking spam at the 5.0 level for our customers and at 4.0
on my personal account since SA 2.55. I have not had to make any
changes as I upgraded. If anything, spam scores are a bit higher now.
The first thing to check is if the
box still running
> v2.63), so any advice is sincerely appreciated.
>
> Great work guys,
Realistically, every SA version is only tuned with consideration for what
happens at the 5.0 score line. The 5.0 score level should yield approximately a
100:1 FN:FP ratio.
The "linearity"
I've been running SA as our main inbound SMTP gateway in front of our GroupWise
system for about 18 months now. I process, filter, and quarantine for the whole
enterprise and do not offer individual user control. I use postfix, amavisd, SA
w/ Bayes, RDJ, Razor, some minimal SMTP-level RBLs, CA
Andy Hester a écrit :
for the info.
Since I really just want to block email with certain words is there a
reason I shouldn't just put some rules in header_checks and
body_checks in postfix?
Would this be better or worse?
- postfix checks apply to the raw body (no decoding)
- they are "boole
arefully lest you wind up blocking emails
talking about unrelated subjects.
SA is for when you want to tally up scores and only block emails that
reach a threshold. Yes, you can "force" it to block mail by setting the
score of a rule really high, but it's generally more efficient an
ted subjects.
SA is for when you want to tally up scores and only block emails that reach
a threshold. Yes, you can "force" it to block mail by setting the score of
a rule really high, but it's generally more efficient and easier to set
this up at the mta layer.
nning sare rules including
70_sare_adult.cf. I have added in local.cf "score 70_sare_adult.cf
10.00" I checked some email that came through this am and found that they
scored 1.792, 4.004, and 2.548. I am trying to avoid having to adjust the
scores in the individual rules and want
From: Andy Hester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> > > I am trying to avoid having to adjust the scores in the
> > > individual rules and want to completely block emails with
> > > certain words.
> > >
> > > Does
Bowie Bailey wrote:
I am trying to avoid
having to adjust the scores in the individual rules and want to
completely block emails with certain words.
Does the score option in local.cf have no affect when sa is called
from amavisd? Any help/suggestions would be appreciated.
The score
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:42:47AM -0500, Andy Hester wrote:
> 70_sare_adult.cf. I have added in local.cf "score 70_sare_adult.cf
> 10.00" I checked some email that came through this am and found that
> they scored 1.792, 4.004, and 2.548. I am trying to avoid having to
aughty words. I have rdj running sare rules including
> 70_sare_adult.cf. I have added in local.cf "score 70_sare_adult.cf
> 10.00" I checked some email that came through this am and found
> that they scored 1.792, 4.004, and 2.548. I am trying to avoid
> having to adjust
f. I have added in local.cf "score 70_sare_adult.cf
10.00" I checked some email that came through this am and found that
they scored 1.792, 4.004, and 2.548. I am trying to avoid having to
adjust the scores in the individual rules and want to completely block
emails with certain wor
I want to set up a general list of scores for many rules that can then be set
as scores themselves.
So for example, I want to have a rule called PORN_GROUP
and then put a bunch of scores in for other rules:
score INTERRUPTUS 4
score LIVE_PORN 1.5
score MALE_ENHANCE 4
.
.
.
And then somehow set a
Yeah this was my problems, Thanks.
El mar, 06-09-2005 a las 12:00 -0400, Matt Kettler escribió:
> Andy Jezierski wrote:
> >
> >
> > Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd
> > is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did
> > not have, an
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>
>> Definitely not.
>>
>> Look at the prompts. Miguel is running spamassassin as root.
>>
>> Miguel is running spamc as root, but spamd will *NEVER* scan mail as
>> root. It
>> will setuid itself to nobody if it finds this situation.
>
>
> At least, not on a rec
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
Andy Jezierski wrote:
Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd
is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did
not have, and spamassassin had a negative AWL score that spamd didn't
have.
Definite
Andy Jezierski wrote:
>
>
> Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd
> is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did
> not have, and spamassassin had a negative AWL score that spamd didn't
> have.
Definitely not.
Look at the prompts. M
procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc
I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script
but i get different scores from the 2 programs.
I have this in my .qmail file
| /usr/bin/procmail ~/.procmailrc
and then in .procmailrc I first sort out all my mailing lists by
match
to do it.
> | spamassassin | preline procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc
>
> I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script
> but i get different scores from the 2 programs.
>
Are you running the spamassassin command under the
same userid as spamd is r
quot;""
The problem that i have is that i only want to launch spamassassin in my
account so i am using my .qmail-file to do it.
| spamassassin | preline procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc
I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script
but i get different scor
graded to SpamAssassin version 3.0.3 running on Perl version
>>5.8.0. I am using in conjunction with spamass-milter - Version 0.3.0 and
>>Sendmail 8.12.11. The OS is RHEL 3.
>
>
>
>>1) It seams that my customized scores from
>>/etc/mail/spamassasssin/local.cf
Hello,
I've been using
Spamassasin for years now and it seems to be that something happened after my
last OS update.
OS: RH
4
Spamassasin ver
3.0.4
Invoking via
Amavis-new
3 weeks ago when we
did an OS and SA update, our users started getting 50-100 spam messages a day
(we're droppi
> Sendmail 8.12.11. The OS is RHEL 3.
>
> 1) It seams that my customized scores from
> /etc/mail/spamassasssin/local.cf don’t work.
Did you restart spamd after editing this file? In order to avoid wasting CPU
time, spamd only reads /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf when it starts up.
:
1)
It seams that my
customized
scores from /etc/mail/spamassasssin/local.cf don’t work.
Local.cf:
required_hits 4.5
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
report_safe 0
score DEAR_SOMETHING 4
score DEAR_FRIEND 4
This file is read by SA (I’ve seen that
from spamassassin -D -u nobody). The
Hello Herb,
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 12:12:26 AM, you wrote:
>> Never place new scores or rules into the
>> /usr/share/spamassassin directory. They WILL get deleted or
>> replaced when you update.
HM> Really? I didn't know that (obviously) although I have updated
HM
Debbie D wrote:
I often want to alter the scores of already set filters in the SARE and
other custom filter sets.. what/where is the proper places to do this
without altering each individual set which will get over-written down the
road
thanks
You want to add them to a .cf file in
> Thanks.. I just wanted to also verify the format of the over rides..
The score override is exactly the same format as the original score line.
The word "score", the identical rule name, and the new score or scores.
> For instance.. if this is the rule I want to over
; > describe SARE_ADLTSUB6 Apparent spam seems to contain porn subject
> > scoreSARE_ADLTSUB6 3.500 # type=obfu
> >
> >
> > I simply add to my custom or create a new custom lets say called:
> > 10_custom_scores.cf
> >
> > scoreSARE_ADLTSUB6 8.5
SARE_ADLTSUB6 3.500 # type=obfu
>
>
> I simply add to my custom or create a new custom lets say called:
> 10_custom_scores.cf
>
> scoreSARE_ADLTSUB6 8.500 # type=obfu
>
> is that correct?? Just a list of the altered scores??
>
> >From your response I take it that
ortant, it just needs to be in /etc/mail/spamassassin
> if this is your local config dir.
>
>>
>> scoreSARE_ADLTSUB6 8.500 # type=obfu
>>
>> is that correct?? Just a list of the altered scores??
>
> Yes. But you don't need the comment. And if you want to disable
.500 # type=obfu
>
> is that correct?? Just a list of the altered scores??
Yes. But you don't need the comment. And if you want to disable a rule
just set it to 0.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Cente
- Original Message -
From: "Debbie D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2005 July, 14, Thursday 06:20
Subject: Re: Proper way to override scores
> I didn't cross post that I am aware of.. I know it is poor form!!
According
> to my SENT box it went to: gmane.mai
I didn't cross post that I am aware of.. I know it is poor form!! According
to my SENT box it went to: gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general only
"jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "Debbie D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=obfu
I simply add to my custom or create a new custom lets say called:
10_custom_scores.cf
scoreSARE_ADLTSUB6 8.500 # type=obfu
is that correct?? Just a list of the altered scores??
>From your response I take it that SA will assign the highest found score??
Not: run thru the sets in or
a good variation on the other two methods.
> Never place new scores or rules into the
> /usr/share/spamassassin directory. They WILL get deleted or
> replaced when you update.
Really? I didn't know that (obviously) although I have updated
several (minor) versions of SpamAssassin
From: "Debbie D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I often want to alter the scores of already set filters in the SARE and
> other custom filter sets.. what/where is the proper places to do this
> without altering each individual set which will get over-written down the
> road
By
From: "Herb Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie D
> >
> > I often want to alter the scores of already set filters in
> > the SARE and other custom filter sets.. w
> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie D
>
> I often want to alter the scores of already set filters in
> the SARE and other custom filter sets.. what/where is the
> proper places to do this without altering each individual set
I often want to alter the scores of already set filters in the SARE and
other custom filter sets.. what/where is the proper places to do this
without altering each individual set which will get over-written down the
road
thanks
Perhaps it is causing fps because of something else in your mail path. For
instance, if you have a virus scanner that inserts oddly-formatted Received:
headers this sort of rule will often end up triggering, since you have
managed to reproduce a typical spammer indication, presumably
unintentional
> > pts rule name description
> > --
> > --
> > [..snip..]
> > 3.9 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS
> > Outlook
> > [..snip..]
> >
> >
> > When changing X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlo
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 02:07:39PM +0200, Philipp Snizek wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> pts rule name description
> --
> --
> [..snip..]
> 3.9 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS
> Outlook
> [..sn
Hi
pts rule name description
--
--
[..snip..]
3.9 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS
Outlook
[..snip..]
When changing X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 to
X-Mailer: Micr
Not if your "vilter" strips off the markup and applies its own.
At this point I'd ask the "vilter" experts.
{o.o}
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
After rebuilding my sendmail.cf with the following:
INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`smtp-vilter',
`S=unix:/var/smtp-vilter/sm
"Mike Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 07/05/2005 02:32:29 PM:
> After rebuilding my sendmail.cf with the following:
>
> INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`smtp-vilter', `S=unix:/var/smtp-vilter/smtp-
> vilter.sock, F=T, T=C:15m;S:10m;R:10m;E:15m')
>
> I am still getting some messages in that ha
amassassin 3.0.4 on Perl 5.8.6 on OpenBSD
3.7. Overall, I am very happy running this on a production smtp gateway
for our M$ Exchange Environment. I do have a weird problem with scores
and thresholds of 0.0 on about 10%-20% of mail. It is intermittent, in
that I can receive the same message thro
: Mike
Keller
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Spamassassin not
assigning scores?
"Mike Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 07/05/2005 11:29:41 AM:
[snip]
>
Sendmail Milter Config:
>
>
INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`smtp-vilter', `S=unix:/var/smtp-vilter
"Mike Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 07/05/2005 11:29:41 AM:
[snip]
> Sendmail Milter Config:
>
> INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`smtp-vilter', `S=unix:/var/smtp-vilter/smtp-
> vilter.sock, F=T, T=C:15m;S:10m;R:10ms;E:15m')dnl
>
> I have all timeouts for smtp-vilter backends
(clamd, spamd) set at
>
First, let me apologize if this has been discussed
before. I just signed up today.
I am running Spamassassin 3.0.4 on Perl 5.8.6 on OpenBSD
3.7. Overall, I am very happy running this on a production smtp gateway
for our M$ Exchange Environment. I do have a weird problem with scores
Greg Earle wrote on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:24:44 -0700:
> Why do I only get one SPAMCOP_URI_RBL_* hit when it's fed to "spamd"
> as it comes in, yet I get 5 of them when I run it manually?
Your spamd either uses different rules or gets a different message (from
whatever feeds the message to it).
Greg Earle wrote:
> (I'm still using 2.63 on my production mail server, btw. Please don't
> shoot
> me.)
I'll avoid shooting you, but I will warn you that you have a DoS vulnerability.
2.64 and higher are immune to this particular DoS.
3.0.1-3.0.3 are also subject to a separate DoS that's fixe
Greg Earle wrote:
> it finds
> "Display:" and "none" just fine when it's in the body as Plain Text
> ... so why doesn't it find them when they're inside HTML?)
"body" rules don't look at HTML tags, they look at an html-to-text'ified
version.
You can look at the raw HTML by using "rawbody" r
I keep getting these Via*/Cial*/Val* "and many other" SPAMs (you know
the ones,
they start with "Hello, Welcome to " and have all
those
obfuscating "DISPLAY:" "none"s embedded in them).
(I'm still using 2.63 on my production mail server, btw. Please don't
shoot
me.)
What I don't understand
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:57:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why does the same e-mail, when processed on the same machine, through
> the same spamc, for differing users, have different values for
> RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 (1,5, 0.1), RAZOR2_CHECK (0.1, 1.5),
> PYZOR_CHECK (2.0, 3.5)? As fa
> pts rule name
> --
> 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_72
> 0.1 HTML_30_40
> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE
> 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100
> pts rule name
> --
> 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_72
> 0.0 HTML_30_40
> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE
> 0.1 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100
> 3.5 BAYES_99
> Wh
c
for filtering, are presented with significantly different scores, by
scores which I would have assumed do NOT have any connection to Bayes or
AWLs.
For example, one mail might get the following list with one user:
Content analysis details: (18.4 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule
top "inter-domain" from
having negative scores?
Thanks.
Nate
Nate Kroll wrote:
> something in spamassassin or amavis that sets a score lower since
> it's from inside our own domain
ALL_TRUSTED
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;p
mail exchanger (where SA resides). However, the spam emails being sent to
the lists addresses are being filtered but having very low negative
scores, like in the -17 to -30 range. I've turned off bayesian filtering
and auto learn to make sure they don't play a role. I'm just w
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:39:46AM +0200, wolfgang wrote:
> thanks. I understand this
> - was only a "labelling" problem
> - has been fixed in 3.0.4.
Yes.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
No, I do not know what the Schadenfreude is. Please tell me, because
I'm dying to know.
--
In an older episode (Wednesday 08 June 2005 00:54), Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:50:59AM +0200, wolfgang wrote:
> Per the Changes file, the full information is in Bugzilla bug 4367:
>
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4367
>
> The short version is that the
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:50:59AM +0200, wolfgang wrote:
> sorry, not being an native english speaker, Isimply don't understand what
> this
> is about, could someone re-phrase that?
Per the Changes file, the full information is in Bugzilla bug 4367:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cg
In an older episode (Tuesday 07 June 2005 22:17), Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:13:48PM -0400, Pete O'Hara wrote:
> > I ran a diff on the scores between 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 and it looks like
> > RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS and RCVD_IN_SORBS_SMT
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:13:48PM -0400, Pete O'Hara wrote:
> I ran a diff on the scores between 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 and it looks like
> RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS and RCVD_IN_SORBS_SMTP scores
> played some musical chairs or am I not seeing this correctly?
Yes, they d
Hi,
I ran a diff on the scores between 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 and it looks like
RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS and RCVD_IN_SORBS_SMTP scores
played some musical chairs or am I not seeing this correctly?
Pete
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff -u Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.3/rules/50_scores.cf
M
Maurice Lucas wrote:
>
> Now we have to wait for 3.0.4 before there will be any change in the
> static score's
I hate to say it, but 3.0.4 is unlikely to change any scores.
Usually there's a new score set at the beginning of a major release, and one
"tweak" score u
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:30 PM
Kevin Sullivan wrote:
On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
If one's wrong, they are ALL wrong.
SA's rule scores are evolved based on a real-world test of a
hand-sorted corpus
Kevin Sullivan wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> If one's wrong, they are ALL wrong.
>>
>> SA's rule scores are evolved based on a real-world test of a
>> hand-sorted corpus of fresh spam and ham. The whole scoreset is
&
On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
If one's wrong, they are ALL wrong.
SA's rule scores are evolved based on a real-world test of a
hand-sorted corpus of fresh spam and ham. The whole scoreset is
evolved simultaneously to optimize the placement pattern.
Of course,
At 08:41 PM 6/2/2005, Jason Haar wrote:
If one's wrong, they are ALL wrong.
By that do you mean that a false positive in one RBL tends to show up in
them all? Probably too much sharing of data/same sources?
No, I mean if one score in the ruleset is wrong, every score in the ruleset
is wrong
ne's wrong, they are ALL wrong.
By that do you mean that a false positive in one RBL tends to show up in
them all? Probably too much sharing of data/same sources?
SA's rule scores are evolved based on a real-world test of a
hand-sorted corpus of fresh spam and ham. The whole
x27;m guessing it was spam (;-) - even though it only got a score of 3/5.
Obviously the default values are set that way as a way of implying
"confidence" in what that means, it's just that I wonder if they need
updating? I guess I'm referring to the scores in 50_scores.cf.
Hi there
I'm finding a fair chunk of spam gets past SA-3.0.3 with scores of 3-4
out of 5 even though it got 2+ network test hits.
e.g.
spamd[18676]: result: . 3 -
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
scantime=4.4,size=143
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> $message =
> "/home/jradford/junk/1116571206-17961:1-j4K6dxup018217-046-mx2";
>
> my $spamtest = Mail::SpamAssassin->new(); my $mail =
> $spamtest->parse( $message );
>
$message needs to contain the entire text of the msg,
> pts rule name description
> -- --
> 0.0 MISSING_DATE Missing Date: header
> -2.8 ALL_TRUSTEDDid not pass through any untrusted hosts
> 1.6 MISSING_SUBJECTMissing Subject: header
I'm trying to figure out why I am getting 2 difference scores,
and different hits from the same email.
The first method is just a simple spamassassin -t < email
2nd is a small perl script invoking Mail::SpamAssassin.
First result is (commandline):
Content analysis details: (11.1 poi
>
> Is there any documentation as to why the BAYES_XX scores have been
> changed, and for what reason? Previously BAYES_00 was -4.9 and BAYES_99
> was 5.4, and they are now -2.5 and 3.5 respectively. Just curious as to
> why.
>
Every major release has all the scores re-gener
BAYES_XX scores have been
changed, and for what reason? Previously BAYES_00 was -4.9 and BAYES_99
was 5.4, and they are now -2.5 and 3.5 respectively. Just curious as to
why.
Thanks,
Chris
re is: default config goes in /usr/share/spamassassin, site
> local in /etc/mail/spamassassin and user specific in ~/.spamassassin, so
> the site administrator or user has no choice other than to modify
> default config or copy all scores and set them to 0.
or use -C, which will ove
er specific in ~/.spamassassin, so
the site administrator or user has no choice other than to modify
default config or copy all scores and set them to 0.
Tom
--
T h o m a s Z e h e t b a u e r ( TZ251 )
PGP encrypted mail preferred - KeyID 96FFCB89
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for k
Raphael Clifford wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Actually, SpamAssassin 3.0.3 can't parse the first received header
either, due to the @ in front of the IP. Even if you were to set
trusted_networks all trusted would fire and there'd be no RBL lookups
etc.
Daryl
I think that is exactly r
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
I am not NAT'ed so I can see no reason why it is ALL_TRUSTED
I think I can:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 19588 invoked from network); 20 May 2005 22:45:07 +0100
Received: from 82-35-6-77.cable.ubr01.hari.blueyonder.co.uk
(@
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:39:28AM +0200, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
> Is there a simple way to disable all default rules / scores?
Move aside/delete the default rule files. There's no point in a config
option to ignore other config options. ;)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Rock
Hi,
Is there a simple way to disable all default rules / scores? I would
like to group IP based blacklist as recommended in bug #4356 and more
fine grained bayes and razor rules. I have now changed my scores to 100
so the default rules have less impact but I wonder if there is a better
way
Loren Wilton wrote:
I am not NAT'ed so I can see no reason why it is ALL_TRUSTED
I think I can:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 19588 invoked from network); 20 May 2005 22:45:07 +0100
Received: from 82-35-6-77.cable.ubr01.hari.blueyonder.co.uk (@82.35.6.77)
by secure.roshan.
I'm not sure why your score is changing, since the list of hit tests seems
to be the same. Two points though:
> (command "spamassassin spam.txt")
I had always thought it was "spamassassin I am not NAT'ed so I can see no reason why it is ALL_TRUSTED
I think I can:
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTEC
so I can see no reason why it is ALL_TRUSTED
The second is that the score fluctuates randomly if I rerun this command
despite the fact that autolearn is "unavailable" or "no" each time. For
example
(DCC seems to have started working since the first test but this doesn'
raw-body-text per-line regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: running full-text regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: auto-learn: currently using scoreset 3, recomputing score based on scores
et 1.
debug: auto-learn: message score: 7, computed score for autolearn: 0
debug: auto-learn? ham=0.1, spam=12
scores
Jeffrey N. Miller wrote:
How and where can I change the Manual Whitelist and/or Blacklist scores?
score
in your local.cf to override.
in that case:
score blacklist_to 10.0
--
Thanks,
James
Jeffrey N. Miller wrote:
How and where can I change the Manual Whitelist and/or Blacklist scores?
score
in your local.cf to override.
--
Thanks,
James
How and where can
I change the Manual Whitelist and/or Blacklist
scores?
uri tests; score so far=7
debug: URIDNSBL: queries completed: 0 started: 0
debug: URIDNSBL: queries active: DNSBL=2 at Mon May 16 14:34:16 2005
debug: running raw-body-text per-line regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: running full-text regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: auto-learn: currently using scorese
uri tests; score so far=7
debug: URIDNSBL: queries completed: 0 started: 0
debug: URIDNSBL: queries active: DNSBL=2 at Mon May 16 14:34:16 2005
debug: running raw-body-text per-line regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: running full-text regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: auto-learn: currently using scorese
uri tests; score so far=7
debug: URIDNSBL: queries completed: 0 started: 0
debug: URIDNSBL: queries active: DNSBL=2 at Mon May 16 14:34:16 2005
debug: running raw-body-text per-line regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: running full-text regexp tests; score so far=7
debug: auto-learn: currently using scorese
901 - 1000 of 1170 matches
Mail list logo
