On Dec 28, 2016, at 3:01 AM, Lukas Erlacher wrote:
> I'm calling "spamc --learntype=spam/ham" from a script, passing in emails
> fetched from imap (I'm using ISBG with --learnspambox / --learnhambox and
> --spamc actually).
Why are you calling spamc instead of sa-learn?
--
Apple broke AppleSc
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:39:52 +0100
Lukas Erlacher wrote:
> On 12/28/2016 03:12 PM, RW wrote:
> >
> > It's done in spamd. Don't attempt to remove X-Spam-* headers
> > yourself or it wont attempt to remove the mime encapsulation.
> >
>
> I'd like to convince myself of that... I ran `sudo -u debian
On 12/28/2016 03:12 PM, RW wrote:
It's done in spamd. Don't attempt to remove X-Spam-* headers yourself
or it wont attempt to remove the mime encapsulation.
I'd like to convince myself of that... I ran `sudo -u debian-spamd spamc
-c < spamspam.eml` on a mail that has spamlevel 14.4 and is en
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:01:05 +0100
Lukas Erlacher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesInSpamAssassin says:
>
> > It's OK to feed emails with Spamassassin markup into the sa-learn
> > command -- sa-learn will ignore any standard Spamassassin headers,
> > and if the origi
On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 11:01 +0100, Lukas Erlacher wrote:
> I haven't found any documentation that specifies this for
> spamc/spamd.
>
I don't think that passing an email to SA via spamc makes any attempt
to strip pre-existing SA headers, but there's an easy way to check:
Find any message that ha
Hello,
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesInSpamAssassin says:
It's OK to feed emails with Spamassassin markup into the sa-learn command --
sa-learn will ignore any standard Spamassassin headers, and if the original
email has been encapsulated into an attachment it will decapsulate the
of different links, but after spending 30 minutes looking
> through every single one of them not a single one provides a place to report
> a spam sent by Yahoo.
>
> Nutshell: Yahoo no longer accepts spam reports. I am therefore blocking Yahoo
> on every mail gateway for which
The Doctor skrev den 2014-08-03 02:54:
Feel free to use my blog http://www.nk.ca/blog/ as proof.
https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/nk.ca
ding 30 minutes
looking through every single one of them not a single one provides a
place to report a spam sent by Yahoo.
Nutshell: Yahoo no longer accepts spam reports. I am therefore blocking
Yahoo on every mail gateway for which I have control, and listing them in
the Pink Providers blac
has hundreds of different links, but after spending 30 minutes looking
> through every single one of them not a single one provides a place to report
> a spam sent by Yahoo.
>
> Nutshell: Yahoo no longer accepts spam reports. I am therefore blocking Yahoo
> on every mail gatew
em not a single one provides a place to report a spam
sent by Yahoo.
Nutshell: Yahoo no longer accepts spam reports. I am therefore blocking Yahoo
on every mail gateway for which I have control, and listing them in the Pink
Providers blacklist effective immediately.
--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798
Friday, August 5, 2011, 11:01:04 PM, Anil wrote:
> I am using sun (oracle) messaging server.
> Anyone have an idea for this?
The report_safe config option tells SA what type of reporting is to be
used:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#report_safe
> On Th
I am using sun (oracle) messaging server.
Anyone have an idea for this?
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
> > By default, you should have an X-Spam-Report header added to all
> > messages marked as spam. This will give you all of the rules that hit
> > and their scores.
>
> By default, you should have an X-Spam-Report header added to all
> messages marked as spam. This will give you all of the rules that hit
> and their scores.
> This is assuming that you are not calling SA through something like
> Amavis that writes its own headers...
Amavisd can include the SA
On 8/2/2011 6:47 PM, Anil wrote:
> Hi, we recently installed SA on our system. For some reason, we don't
> see the spam reports we used to see before (appended to the email body).
>
> Is this feature no longer available?
>
> We are seeing some emails incorrectly identifie
Hi, we recently installed SA on our system. For some reason, we don't see
the spam reports we used to see before (appended to the email body).
Is this feature no longer available?
We are seeing some emails incorrectly identified as SPAM and I have no way
of trying to figure out what caused
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 22:31 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Jeremy Davila wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:18:48 -0500:
>
> > I meant a SA log file with history of how much spam we took in for the day
> > and their scores.
>
> This very much depends on the calling program. AFAIK, SA by itself doesn't
Jeremy Davila wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:18:48 -0500:
> I meant a SA log file with history of how much spam we took in for the day
> and their scores.
This very much depends on the calling program. AFAIK, SA by itself doesn't
log. On that log you could then apply the log analysis program of J
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Jeremy Davila wrote:
You are right Kaithat was not clear enought .
I meant a SA log file with history of how much spam we took in for the day
and their scores.
google "spamassassin log analysis"
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin
respond to
users@spamassassin.apache.org
To
users@spamassassin.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Spam Reports
Jeremy Davila wrote on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:27:17 -0500:
> Is there any SA reporting feature to analyze scores and etc. ?
Can you rephrase that so one actually understands it? If you are
Jeremy Davila wrote on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:27:17 -0500:
> Is there any SA reporting feature to analyze scores and etc. ?
Can you rephrase that so one actually understands it? If you are asking
about adding scores to the message headers. Yes, this is possible.
see
http://spamassassin.apache.org
Is there any SA reporting feature to analyze scores and etc. ?
Never mind. My problems were not coming from spamd at all. They were
coming from milter-spamc which was calling spamd.
Michael Grant
On 8/29/07, Jari Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm trying to create my own spam report template.
> >
> > spamassassin seems to be putting in an extra
> I'm trying to create my own spam report template.
>
> spamassassin seems to be putting in an extra return or
> linefeed when I do this:
>
> clear_report_template
> report _REPORT_
>
> What I get in the headers is this:
>
> X-Spam-Report: \r\n * 0.6 NO_REAL_NAME From: does
> not include
I'm trying to create my own spam report template.
spamassassin seems to be putting in an extra return or linefeed when I do this:
clear_report_template
report _REPORT_
What I get in the headers is this:
X-Spam-Report: \r\n * 0.6 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a
real name\r\n * -0.0
I am seeing detailted spamassassin reports when a specific spam email was
tagged such as below:
Content analysis details: (37.9 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
1.0 INVALID_TZ_GMT
Menno van Bennekom a écrit :
Mouss wrote:
twtelecom.net is in the US.
Yes, I'm doing too many things at a time today so I was only triggered by
the 'tw' ;-)
would be "fun" to block Time Warner because of that:)
I'm not certain many spammers do really care to clean up the address
lists...
Mouss wrote:
>
> twtelecom.net is in the US.
Yes, I'm doing too many things at a time today so I was only triggered by
the 'tw' ;-)
>
>> By the way, I wouldn't report spam to the abuse-addresses, the reports
>> are
>> often forwarded to the spammer. It is often only used as a confirmation
>> that
Menno van Bennekom a écrit :
I know some ip-addresses here that try to send me viruses for over a year!
Posting this to the abuse I did once or twice and indeed doesn't help
always but I also block the ip at the MTA level (postfix) and that does
help ;-)
Some I have even blocked at the firewall
Chris wrote:
> Since about the 22nd or 23nd I've been getting virus laden (Sober.U) spam
> from an address at twtelecom.net (66.162.83.190). All my spam reporting
> is done via two scripts, one is reporter.pl which runs sa-learn and
> reports to Razor, Pyzor and DCC. The other script, which was w
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Mike Jackson wrote:
twtelecom is staffed by morons, like most other large providers.
Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say they're morons. They're just near-sighted.
They'll do whatever they need to do - and no more - to protect their own
interests without considering the impl
twtelecom is staffed by morons, like most other large providers.
Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say they're morons. They're just
near-sighted. They'll do whatever they need to do - and no more - to protect
their own interests without considering the implications for others on the
net. Take AO
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Chris wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 8:26 pm, M. Lewis wrote:
Chris,
My opinion (opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all
stink).
1. If the person was legit, he would *not* have responded harshly and
'threatened you' that things would get ugly.
2. There
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 8:26 pm, M. Lewis wrote:
> Chris,
>
> My opinion (opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all
> stink).
>
> 1. If the person was legit, he would *not* have responded harshly and
> 'threatened you' that things would get ugly.
>
> 2. There isn't squat he can
Ultimately twtelecom.net should be responsible. It's their customer
they've allocated IP space for. Here is where the IP space was
allocated to according to ARIN:
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20NET-66-162-83-176-1
On Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 2:09:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabul
Since about the 22nd or 23nd I've been getting virus laden (Sober.U) spam
from an address at twtelecom.net (66.162.83.190). All my spam reporting is
done via two scripts, one is reporter.pl which runs sa-learn and reports to
Razor, Pyzor and DCC. The other script, which was written by Karsten
At 01:43 19-5-2005, Ryan Sorensen wrote:
My biggest concern though is messages that come in from spammers, get
filtered by spam assassin (they have ***SPAM*** tags in the subject) and
then go on to the AOL forwards. These are defanged messages that still get
reported as spam. I have to believe t
From: "Ryan Sorensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Mike Jackson wrote:
> >
> >> A couple days ago, I set up AOL's "feedback loop" (though the loop
> >> part is a misnomer, since you can't actually respond to the messages)
> >> so I could monitor complaints against my employer's servers. Looking
> >> th
jdow wrote:
Er, turn off your open relay as a starter. What you described is typical
open relay performance. And of course it taints you. The spammers are
simply relaying off your system. Until you stop the spam relays you
have no leg to stand on.
...Or maybe he has particular users whose accounts
Er, turn off your open relay as a starter. What you described is typical
open relay performance. And of course it taints you. The spammers are
simply relaying off your system. Until you stop the spam relays you
have no leg to stand on.
I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police
proceed to report defanged spam reports and other spam to AOL.
Since the mail passed thru my system, I get the TOS report. In no way is
this an open relay.
-Ryan Sorensen
Mike Jackson wrote:
A couple days ago, I set up AOL's "feedback loop" (though the loop
part is a misnomer, since you can't actually respond to the messages)
so I could monitor complaints against my employer's servers. Looking
through the messages AOL says their members reported as spam, I
notic
From: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A couple days ago, I set up AOL's "feedback loop" (though the loop part is
a
> misnomer, since you can't actually respond to the messages) so I could
> monitor complaints against my employer's servers. Looking through the
> messages AOL says their members
Mike Jackson wrote:
A couple days ago, I set up AOL's "feedback loop" (though the loop
part is a misnomer, since you can't actually respond to the messages)
so I could monitor complaints against my employer's servers. Looking
through the messages AOL says their members reported as spam, I
notic
amassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: (OT, slightly) dealing with AOL spam reports?
Mike Jackson wrote:
> * Invoking a policy of not forwarding to AOL accounts, but we're a web
> design/hosting firm with about 200 domains, and a handful of customers
have
> AOL addresses, and that sort of policy
Bob McClure Jr wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:16:15AM -0700, Mike Jackson wrote:
A couple days ago, I set up AOL's "feedback loop" (though the loop part is
a misnomer, since you can't actually respond to the messages) so I could
monitor complaints against my employer's servers. Looking through
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Bob McClure Jr wrote:
> As I understand it, once you have your server listed on the AOL
> feedback loop, it is whitelisted, so that may solve the immediate
> problem.
Not really. I can tell you the magic number is 10. As in, if someone goes
on vacation, gets back, and repor
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Mike Jackson wrote:
> * Invoking a policy of not forwarding to AOL accounts, but we're a web
> design/hosting firm with about 200 domains, and a handful of customers have
> AOL addresses, and that sort of policy wouldn't stand.
Variation of this -- inform then they can not us
Mike Jackson wrote:
* Invoking a policy of not forwarding to AOL accounts, but we're a web
design/hosting firm with about 200 domains, and a handful of customers have
AOL addresses, and that sort of policy wouldn't stand.
This doesn't directly address your question, but we have found that the AOL
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:16:15AM -0700, Mike Jackson wrote:
> A couple days ago, I set up AOL's "feedback loop" (though the loop part is
> a misnomer, since you can't actually respond to the messages) so I could
> monitor complaints against my employer's servers. Looking through the
> messages
A couple days ago, I set up AOL's "feedback loop" (though the loop part is a
misnomer, since you can't actually respond to the messages) so I could
monitor complaints against my employer's servers. Looking through the
messages AOL says their members reported as spam, I noticed that none of
them
Matt Kettler wrote:
Brian Godette wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] appears to be not only running this mailing
list thru spamassassin (bad idea) but also auto-reporting any positive hits
(incredibly bad idea).
Agreed... SA ditched the "auto_report_threshold" feature back in 2.30
back in 2002. If it was
Brian Godette wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] appears to be not only running this mailing
>list thru spamassassin (bad idea) but also auto-reporting any positive hits
>(incredibly bad idea).
>
>
>
Agreed... SA ditched the "auto_report_threshold" feature back in 2.30
back in 2002. If it was a bad ide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] appears to be not only running this mailing
list thru spamassassin (bad idea) but also auto-reporting any positive hits
(incredibly bad idea).
54 matches
Mail list logo
