On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:01:34 -0500
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 03/10, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> > Wouldn't spam already scored at 15+ be considered a little redundant
> > to the corpus? If not, I'm certain I could modify my config to keep
> > a copy for processing in the mass checks.
>
> No.
On 03/10/2011 11:49 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> On 2011/03/10 2:17 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
>> I figure spam capped at 15+ points would be fine, but you'll need
>> developer consensus on that.
>>
>
> Wouldn't spam already scored at 15+ be considered a little redundant
> to the corpus? If not, I'm ce
On 03/10, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> >On 03/10, John Hardin wrote:
> >>Spam is easy to get, diverse ham much less so.
> >
> >That's funny, since the sa-updates are currently not happening due to a
> >l
/201101.mbox/%3c4d40f924.3070...@dostech.ca%3E
On 03/10, John Hardin wrote:
Spam is easy to get, diverse ham much less so.
That's funny, since the sa-updates are currently not happening due to a
lack of spam.
Odd. Those stats aren't reflected on the ruleqa page. Where are you
ge
On 03/10, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> Wouldn't spam already scored at 15+ be considered a little redundant
> to the corpus? If not, I'm certain I could modify my config to keep
> a copy for processing in the mass checks.
No. If all spams scored 15+ hit similar tests, and none of those spams are
inclu
On 2011/03/10 2:17 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
On 03/10/2011 07:59 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
I'd be happy to contribute, but we bounce or outright delete high
scoring spam.
After Reading these wiki articles:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/HandClassifiedCorpora
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Co
On 03/10/2011 07:59 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> I'd be happy to contribute, but we bounce or outright delete high
> scoring spam.
>
> After Reading these wiki articles:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/HandClassifiedCorpora
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CorpusCleaning
> I get the impr
On 03/10, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> Discussion on the dev list points to a lack of sufficient ham in the
> corpus which is necessary to generate score updates and publish new
> rules. There was a recent drive for new submitters, but I'm still
> trying to figure out how I
On 2011/03/10 10:59 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Discussion on the dev list points to a lack of sufficient ham in the
corpus which is necessary to generate score updates and publish new
rules. There was a recent drive for new submitters, but I'm still
trying to figure out how I can rearran
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Adam Moffett wrote:
Discussion on the dev list points to a lack of sufficient ham in the
corpus which is necessary to generate score updates and publish new rules.
There was a recent drive for new submitters, but I'm still trying to
figure out how I can rearran
Discussion on the dev list points to a lack of sufficient ham in the
corpus which is necessary to generate score updates and publish new
rules. There was a recent drive for new submitters, but I'm still
trying to figure out how I can rearrange my configuration in order to
help.
On 2011/03/10 6:41 AM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
Apologies if this has been covered, an admittedly fairly cursory
Google showed nothing new. My local sa-update hasn't updated in the
better part of a month. Is it that there have been no updates or do I
need to dig into my systems to see
On 3/10/2011 1:41 AM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
Apologies if this has been covered, an admittedly fairly cursory
Google showed nothing new. My local sa-update hasn't updated in the
better part of a month. Is it that there have been no updates or do I
need to dig into my systems to see
On 3/10/2011 1:41 PM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Is it that there have been no updates or do I
need to dig into my systems to see what I broke, how and when?
Regards to all
Nigel
Why fix whats not broken :o)
regards
Tom
Hi All,
Apologies if this has been covered, an admittedly fairly cursory
Google showed nothing new. My local sa-update hasn't updated in the
better part of a month. Is it that there have been no updates or do I
need to dig into my systems to see what I broke, how and when?
Regards to all
Nigel
C. Bensend wrote:
Then you haven't been getting the regular updates. If you don't have
updates.spamassassin.org in your --channelfile, it won't check it...
No, I stand corrected, sorry for the misinformation. At the very
top of the file (they had scrolled out of m
> Then you haven't been getting the regular updates. If you don't have
> updates.spamassassin.org in your --channelfile, it won't check it...
No, I stand corrected, sorry for the misinformation. At the very
top of the file (they had scrolled out of my term), I have:
upd
move the SARE rules due to
> all this advice, and I just want to make sure I'm doing the correct
> thing here...
>
> I have an /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-channels.txt file that
> lists the additional SARE channels I was updating via Daryl's
> site. Only SARE channel
xt --gpgkey 856AA88A --gpgkey
6C6191E3 && /usr/local/bin/spamassassin --lint && pkill -SIGHUP spamd
I should just be able to rip out the sa-update-channels.txt and the
second GPG key, and I'll still get the stock ruleset updates, but
won't be buggin' Daryl or futzing wi
On 2010-08-18 14:05, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
/etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-update-channels.txt
BE sareful about SARE rules. They are often obsolete, have false positives
and meny of them are already incorporated in stock SA, and some have better
alternatives (uri blacklist vs. hardcode
On 17.08.10 10:06, Mark Chaney wrote:
> I found out the above when trying to use the following howto for SARE
> rule updates: http://www.topdog.za.net/configure_spamassassin.
>
> #
> r...@warpath:~# sa-update --import GPG.KEY
> gpg: keybl
LOL, yep, I am retarded. Thanks!
Any ideas on the sa-update question/concern?
Thanks,
Mark
On 08/17/2010 11:17 AM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:06:41 -0500
Mark Chaney wrote:
Why do I have two spamassassin directories? They seem to have the
exact same files with the same modified da
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 10:06 -0500, Mark Chaney wrote:
> Why do I have two spamassassin directories? They seem to have the
> exact same files with the same modified dates, yet I dont see any
> symlinking going on (though I easily could be blind and missing something).
>
One could be a hard link s
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:06:41 -0500
Mark Chaney wrote:
> Why do I have two spamassassin directories? They seem to have the
> exact same files with the same modified dates, yet I dont see any
> symlinking going on (though I easily could be blind and missing
> something).
> r...@warpath:~# ls -
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 10:06 -0500, Mark Chaney wrote:
> Why do I have two spamassassin directories? They seem to have the
> exact same files with the same modified dates, yet I dont see any
> symlinking going on (though I easily could be blind and missing something).
> r...@warpath:~# ls -l /etc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1237 2010-03-29 10:01 v330.pre
##
Can I just delete the /etc/mail/spamassassin/ one and symlink to the other?
I found out the above when trying to use the following howto for SARE
rule updates: http://www.topdog.za.net
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Matt Kettler wrote:
On 6/9/2010 12:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
Even better:
Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
or
Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all
On 6/9/2010 12:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
>>
> Even better:
>
> Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
>
> or
>
> Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critic
On 9-Jun-2010, at 10:25, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>> It would be great if you could document exactly what features are
>>> exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how
>>> much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5?
>>
>> All new rules. All current spam-fighting measu
Hi,
>> It would be great if you could document exactly what features are
>> exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how
>> much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5?
>
> All new rules. All current spam-fighting measures.
Yes, I realize that. I was hoping for specif
On 8-Jun-2010, at 21:22, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to
>> keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest
>> version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without
>> it!), but don't have that clear
On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
Even better:
Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
or
Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all)
--
I collect blondes and bottles. ~Marlowe
before a x.y.0 release, a large batch of new rules are
added in, and all rules are up on the chopping block for elimination.
This is also when a whole new scoreset gets generated (historically a
long, slow process that took a lot of CPU time). Sa-updates in 3.1.x
will add and remove some rules, ch
Hi,
> We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to
> keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest
> version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without
> it!), but don't have that clearly documented either.
It would be great if you
On 6/8/2010 5:48 PM, James Ralston wrote:
> On 2010-05-21 at 03:09+02 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
>
>> 3.2.x is in maintenance, and gets emergency rule updates
>> *exclusively*. As it has been for quite a long time.
>>
>> 3.3.x uses a new rule update mode
On 2010-05-21 at 03:09+02 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> 3.2.x is in maintenance, and gets emergency rule updates
> *exclusively*. As it has been for quite a long time.
>
> 3.3.x uses a new rule update model, and gets frequent updates. IFF
> the mass-check corpus is large enoug
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 21:34 -0400, Robert Palmer wrote:
> yum install insisted I have current version so I used cpan which got me
> to 3.3.1. Should I stop there or consider 3.3.2 or 3.4.x?
http://spamassassin.apache.org/
Did you have a look there, yet? 3.3.1 is the latest stable release.
3.3.2
On fre 21 maj 2010 03:09:05 CEST, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote
Ignoring your (humble or not) opinion for a second... 3.3.x is the
latest stable.
thanks for clearing up this mess :)
3.3.1 is not being stable here on gentoo, there is a few problems with
spf check, and i will try to find where its
even 3.3.1 is not being updated
longer, 3.3.2 is
Nope. Rule updates for all 3.3.x versions have been lacking recently,
due to limited mass-check corpora below the (high for sanity reasons)
threshold.
However, 3.4.x (read that again, FOUR, the current unstable dev tree)
have not been affected
l latest stable
Ignoring your (humble or not) opinion for a second... 3.3.x is the
latest stable.
> and some have posted on maillist even 3.3.1 is not being updated
> longer, 3.3.2 is
Nope. Rule updates for all 3.3.x versions have been lacking recently,
due to limited mass-check corpor
and I have started getting
>>> a lot of nasty spam coming through.
>> just upgrade to SA 3.3.1
>> only current versions of SA have current rule updates.
>
> imho 3.2.5 is still latest stable
>
> and some have posted on maillist even 3.3.1 is not being updated
>
only current versions of SA have current rule updates.
imho 3.2.5 is still latest stable
and some have posted on maillist even 3.3.1 is not being updated
longer, 3.3.2 is
so rules are fuzzy now :(
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On 5/20/10 6:00 PM, Robert Palmer wrote:
I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not
updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot
of nasty spam coming through.
just upgrade to SA 3.3.1
only current versions of SA have current rule updates
I am running spamassassin version 3.2.4 and notice my rules have not
updated (sa-update) for many months and I have started getting a lot of
nasty spam coming through.
Is it the case that the default rules are no longer being updated and
are there any other recommended sources for anti-spam ru
t;>>
>>>> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 06:45 -0500, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>&
2010-03-01 at 06:45 -0500, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Anywa
t;>
>>>>
>>> I was originally running the 3.3 rules and that was fine, and as far as
>>> I know, I did even run sa-upgrade (can't tell you if it upgraded the
>>> rules over the base ones) but it's the latest sa-update that pulled in
>>
d even run sa-upgrade (can't tell you if it upgraded the
>> rules over the base ones) but it's the latest sa-update that pulled in
>> newer rules that didn't link. And it's my monkeying around, deleting
>> rules directories, that has left me without rules from upda
nd that was fine, and as far as
> I know, I did even run sa-upgrade (can't tell you if it upgraded the
> rules over the base ones) but it's the latest sa-update that pulled in
> newer rules that didn't link. And it's my monkeying around, deleting
> rules dir
>>
>
> The first sentence is seriously confusing. You can not "sa-update to
> 3.3.0". sa-update only updates the rules, for the already installed
> version.
>
Yeah, sorry about that... As I've discovered, it's all tied to the
version of SA and 3.2
n not "sa-update to
3.3.0". sa-update only updates the rules, for the already installed
version.
> How, if it's possible, can I tell SA and sa-update to use the 3.2
> version of the ruleset? Simply deleting the tree and sa-compiling did
> not work. SA is still looking for 3
Folks,
For what ever reason, my sa-update to 3.30 has buggered itself. In my
efforts to debug it's now at the situation that SA has no rules to run
and I'm getting swamped.
How, if it's possible, can I tell SA and sa-update to use the 3.2
version of the ruleset? Simply deleting the tree and sa-co
On 19/02/2010 12:37 PM, Ben DJ wrote:
> 2010/2/15 Daryl C. W. O'Shea :
>> Yeah. That'll be corrected RSN.
>
> Great. Atm,
>
> dig +short -t TXT 1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
> "903765"
>
> Just to be clear, "this^^^" will be the channel used by spamassassin's
> sa-update from SVN 3.3.x bran
2010/2/15 Daryl C. W. O'Shea :
> Yeah. That'll be corrected RSN.
Great. Atm,
dig +short -t TXT 1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
"903765"
Just to be clear, "this^^^" will be the channel used by spamassassin's
sa-update from SVN 3.3.x branch, correct?
Thanks.
BendDJ
On 15/02/2010 8:11 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 09:35 -0800, Ben DJ wrote:
>> I've installed,
>>
>> spamassassin -V
>> SpamAssassin version 3.3.1-r905461
>>running on Perl version 5.10.0
>
>> Attempts to pull rules from "updates.spamassassin.org"
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 09:35 -0800, Ben DJ wrote:
> I've installed,
>
> spamassassin -V
> SpamAssassin version 3.3.1-r905461
> running on Perl version 5.10.0
> Attempts to pull rules from "updates.spamassassin.org", (1), &
> "sought.rules.yerp.org", (2), channels FAIL w
I've installed,
spamassassin -V
SpamAssassin version 3.3.1-r905461
running on Perl version 5.10.0
Starting with a fresh install, i.e. no Updates ...
ls -al /usr/local/var/spamassassin/Updates
(empty)
Attempts to pull rules
I'm investigating why now. The root cause I know... that mirror blew a
power supply last night, so I moved it to a new server in a hurry at
midnight. Apparently I messed up the config somewhere.
Anywho... it's now working. Not the way I would like it to, but how it
wants to.
Daryl
On 02/01/2
I noticed that my channels were not updating from the master list over at
DOStech... so I decided to rename my rules folder to .old and re-run
sa-update
I get the spamassassin master cf files, but on every other entry I get
something similar to this:
http: request failed: 404 Not Found: 40
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, R-Elists wrote:
is this older link still working and keeping realtime track of updates?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
Yeah, those links are valid. I just haven't committed anything in a while.
--
John Hardin K
is this older link still working and keeping realtime track of updates?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/
specifically this link
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
since i have been watching these devels
thanks
- rh
LuKreme wrote:
I haven't gone to any of the sites, and it could all be coincidence, but
it seemed a little suspicious to me.
Over-reaction?
I'd be suspicious, too, but there are regulations (in some jurisdictions,
for some industries) stating that companies have to alert you when their
priv
I've gotten a message from realage-privacypolicy.com which looks like
it is a typical corporate html-heavy message. This one is updating me
that their privacy policy has changed. The reason I am suspicious is
that I've received at least 3 others this week that look very similar
from various
an In-Reply-To header at all. :)
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 16:58 -0400, Jeremy Davila wrote:
> Any Idea of when we will expect a new version of SA or new rule
> updates.
When it is done. So much for the standard Open Source answer. You did
read some recent posts talking about "3.3 w
Hi!
Any Idea of when we will expect a new version of SA or new rule
updates. We are getting hit pretty hard with Spam lately.
Feel free to submit rules, dont just sit and wait. ;)
Bye,
Raymond.
Any Idea of when we will expect a new version of SA or new rule updates.
We are getting hit pretty hard with Spam lately.
On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 11:37 -0500, Chris wrote:
> Does this have something to do with not being able to connect to
> Justin's site for sought updates?
Yes. And no. ;)
The server actually is available currently. The advertised rule-set
version isn't. Anyway, that's the reaso
Does this have something to do with not being able to connect to
Justin's site for sought updates?
--
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
jida...@jidanni.org a écrit :
> m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/sa-update.sh.txt
> m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/channel.conf
> They give 403 Forbidden.
should be fixed now. sorry for the annoyance.
m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/sa-update.sh.txt
m> http://www.netoyen.net/sa/channel.conf
They give 403 Forbidden.
> >> ???AFAIK Justin is aware of this, and hopefully will have fixed it
> >> soon. :)
> On Wed, December 10, 2008 12:28, Justin Mason wrote:
> > this should be fixed now, I think...
On 15.12.08 03:12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
[...]
> [746] dbg: http: GET request,
> http://yerp.org/rules/stage/320726
> [746] dbg: generic: lint check of site pre files succeeded,
> continuing with channel updates
> [746] dbg: channel: no MIRRORED.BY file available
> [746] dbg: http: GET request, http://yerp.org/rules/MIRRORED.BY
> [746] dbg: channel: MIRRORED.BY file retrieved
> [746] dbg
On Wed, December 10, 2008 12:28, Justin Mason wrote:
>> ???AFAIK Justin is aware of this, and hopefully will have fixed it
>> soon. :)
>
> this should be fixed now, I think...
[746] dbg: generic: lint check of site pre files succeeded,
continuing with channel updates
[746
On 12-Dec-2008, at 07:20, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
If
something doesn't work, please do at least think twice about the
command
that failed, *before* venting your broken syntax to the list.
It wasn't *MY* broken syntax, that's the whole point.
--
The other cats just think he's a tosser. -
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:12 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 11-Dec-2008, at 14:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I read a hell of a lot of stuff about all this, and have been running
> SA since 2.mumble If you are a plug-n-play sysadmin, then no
> problem. If you are already well-versed in the vag
My god, let it go, please!
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
In article , LuKreme
writes
>The gpg installed on my FreeBSD does not have a man page (installed by
>ports for SA3.2.5, IIRC), just a --help which says the syntax is:
Logically you have security/gnupg installed which means...
%ls -l /usr/local/bin/gpg*
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4 Oct 15
On 11-Dec-2008, at 14:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
...or read the documentation.
I read a hell of a lot of stuff about all this, and have been running
SA since 2.mumble If you are a plug-n-play sysadmin, then no
problem. If you are already well-versed in the vagaries of gpg, then
fin
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 22:29 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 13:32 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> > Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded
> > it. And it came from the same server as the rules are coming.
> > The KeyID is coming from who knows wh
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 13:32 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> > It's almost like "Just download this key file and you'll be fine. Don't
> > worry about where it came from, just put it in your keyring."
>
> Not at all, I KNOW where the gpg.key came from, because I downloaded
> it. And it came from the s
look like a bunch of random numbers)
>
> The KeyID is coming from who knows where.
the KeyID came from the original announcement of the ruleset by the
author. This is currently hosted on his blog.
http://taint.org/2007/08/15/004348a.html
> > > > Because sa-update is designed
d it came from the same server as the rules are coming.
The point is that at some point you have to trust the source to give
you
the correct information. (Which, in the case of an encryption key or
key id, will look like a bunch of random numbers)
The KeyID is coming from who knows where
RobertH wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:49:28 -0800:
> what ones did you keep? if you recall, any particular reason why?
Hm, I checked and it seems I was wrong, partly. I still have them in the
channels.txt for my sa-update. I removed them on some other machines
partly because of memory constraint
Mouss wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:34:21 +0100:
> 90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
Thanks, for the tip, I wasn't aware of it. As I understand it helps URIBL
to score on subdomains that it otherwise wouldn't check at all?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Inter
At 22:19 10-12-2008, LuKreme wrote:
I ssh to the server and then I sudo su (so I am sure I have discarded
my own login environment, I do not normally do this)
mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg
gpg: error reading key: No public key
gpg --no-default-keyring
y>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:48:34 +0100:
> Hmm, mine doesn't. :)
My package says gnupg-1.4.5-13.
> Instead that option's desc starts with "List all
> keys from the public keyrings, or just the keys given on the command
> line".
Y
."
The point is that at some point you have to trust the source to give you
the correct information. (Which, in the case of an encryption key or
key id, will look like a bunch of random numbers)
> > Because sa-update is designed to provide updates in a secure way.
> > If you w
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, LuKreme wrote:
I'm still unclear on how the --gpgkey makes it more secure. If the file
is signed, the signature is checked against the public key that I have
in pubring.gpg. What does the gpgkey do?
It indicates which key to use to check the signature.
--
John Hardin
> > mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg
> > gpg: error reading key: No public key
And another doc you didn't read before asking here, LuKreme...
> I get the same, and without the path to a file I get the keys from the
> global keyring which are non for SA. man
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
LuKreme wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:19:25 -0700:
> mail# gpg --list-keys /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-keys/pubring.gpg
> gpg: error reading key: No public key
I get the same, and without the path to a file I get the keys from the
g
LuKreme wrote:
> I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
> number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still not
> found that information. I've seen the IDs in others posts, sure, but
> where do they originate?
>
> Even searching the wiki (which
Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sub 1024g/1B24BE83 2002-02-28
By adding the key to the keychain, you are trusting it. The
security part is that you can verify whether the signer generated
the updates. Even if the host is compromised, you are "safe" as
long as the private key
eter.
gpgkey. I've added the key to the keychain as a trusted key, that is
enough to make it secure. How is this 8 digit hex code making
anything any more secure?
By adding the key to the keychain, you are trusting it. The security
part is that you can verify whether the signer genera
re do they originate?
sa-update uses GPG (GNU Privacy Guard) to verify the authenticity of
the updates. The Sought rules webpage mentions how to download the
GPG key. If you want to understand how GPG works or how to use GPG
keys, you should read the GPG documentation.
Yes, downloading th
s GPG (GNU Privacy Guard) to verify the authenticity of
the updates. The Sought rules webpage mentions how to download the
GPG key. If you want to understand how GPG works or how to use GPG
keys, you should read the GPG documentation.
Even searching the wiki (which just links to the previously l
>
> Right. I removed most if not all of the SARE rules on most
> machines some months ago with no ill effects.
>
> Kai
what ones did you keep? if you recall, any particular reason why?
- rh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
LuKreme wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:51:47 -0700:
> I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
> number. In fact, I read many posts, and many webpages and have still
> not found that information. I've seen t
LuKreme a écrit :
> On 10-Dec-2008, at 01:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC):
>>> Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page
>>
>> and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-)
>
> I read the man page, where there is no mention
On 10-Dec-2008, at 01:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Duane Hill wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:53:39 + (UTC):
Do a search for 'sought' on the SA wiki page
and read the documentation on sa-update before you ask again ;-)
I read the man page, where there is no mention of how to obtain this
number
John Horne a écrit :
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 22:54 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 9-Dec-2008, at 17:09, John Horne wrote:
>>> Try:
>>>
>>>sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel sought.rules.yerp.org
>> Ok, that gives me no error (where did you find/get the 6C6191E3?). It
>> sits for about 20-30 s
201 - 300 of 471 matches
Mail list logo
