On Thursday 06 December 2001 17:32 pm, shock wrote:
> So far, it's been *fantastic*. Mail::SpamAssassin is unbelievably
> accurate, and the filter script behaves exactly as I expect it to.
I've been trying to install this module from CPAN with dh-make-perl. The
build fails claiming it can't fi
Klaus,
> > SPAM=SPAM
> > SPAMMERS=$HOME/procmail/spammers
> >
> > # Anti-spam
> > :0:
> > * ? (formail -x From: -x Sender: -x Reply-To: -x Received: -x
> > Subject: | fgrep - iqf $SPAMMERS) .
> > $SPAM /|\
> >
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:21:57AM -0900, Christopher S. Swingley wrote:
| > I've been thinking of making a similar thing, just so I can list each
| > spammer on one line instead of 4.
|
| FYI, if you do something like this in your procmail recipe file:
|
| SPAM=SPAM
| SPAMMERS=$HOME/proc
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Christopher S. Swingley wrote:
> > I've been thinking of making a similar thing, just so I can list each
> > spammer on one line instead of 4.
>
> FYI, if you do something like this in your procmail recipe file:
>
> SPAM=SPAM
> SPAMMERS=$HOME/procmail/spammers
>
> #
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:40:18 -0500
dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I did this yesterday, but had to abandon it. I got quite a few errors
and
> | messages sent back to the originator of the emails. This is part of my
> | /var/log/exim/mainlog:
>
> I think this might be relevant -
> http://
> I've been thinking of making a similar thing, just so I can list each
> spammer on one line instead of 4.
FYI, if you do something like this in your procmail recipe file:
SPAM=SPAM
SPAMMERS=$HOME/procmail/spammers
# Anti-spam
:0:
* ? (formail -x From: -x Sender: -x Reply-To
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 05:26:33PM +, Phillip Deackes wrote:
| On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:43:32 +0530
| Raghavendra Bhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Get yourselves the razor, dman. It is very good at catching and
| > reporting spam.
| >
| > apt-get install razor
|
| I did this yeste
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 07:16:48PM -0500, dman wrote:
> I saw a mention of a distributed spam-identification system in the
> weekly news, so I'll check that out too sometime.
It's razor. I just installed it, and it correctly recognised the two spam
messages I had lying around in my mailbox :)
Th
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:43:32 +0530
Raghavendra Bhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Get yourselves the razor, dman. It is very good at catching and
> reporting spam.
>
> apt-get install razor
I did this yesterday, but had to abandon it. I got quite a few errors and
messages sent back to the
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:20:29AM +, Pollywog wrote:
| On 2001.12.06 22:18 dman wrote:
| > On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:01:36PM +, Pollywog wrote:
|
| > | Maybe Procmail is in a different place than you set in your
| > | procmailrc.
| >
| > What do you mean by this? I also have a long lis
[Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 07:16:48PM -0500] dman :
> I saw a mention of a distributed spam-identification system in the
> weekly news, so I'll check that out too sometime.
Get yourselves the razor, dman. It is very good at catching and
reporting spam.
apt-get install razor
--
ragOO, V
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:17:30PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
| dman wrote:
...
| > :0
| > * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > /dev/null
| >
| > However the messages keep getting past these recipes and to my
| > list-matching recipe.
|
| Those look like they ought to work. One thing, though I doubt it's
| c
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:28:02PM -0700, Gary Hennigan wrote:
| dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
| > I've been thinking of making a similar thing, just so I can list each
| > spammer on one line instead of 4.
|
| You do know that you can use a logical "OR" in your rules right? The
| "|" symbo
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:32:48PM -0600, shock wrote:
>
> | i had the same problem with a different spammer. no matter what i did,
> | i simply could not get the procmail recipe to properly filter the
> | thing.
>
> at least I'm not a freak ;-)
nope,
dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:32:48PM -0600, shock wrote:
> | On 2001.12.06 20:23 dman wrote:
> | >
> | > I've been getting a bunch of spam on a certain list. The latest
> | > message has the following From: line :
> |
> | i had the same problem with a different s
On 2001.12.06 22:18 dman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:01:36PM +, Pollywog wrote:
| Maybe Procmail is in a different place than you set in your
| procmailrc.
What do you mean by this? I also have a long list of other spammer
addresses in that same file, and those others get filed pro
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:32:48PM -0600, shock wrote:
| On 2001.12.06 20:23 dman wrote:
| >
| > I've been getting a bunch of spam on a certain list. The latest
| > message has the following From: line :
|
| i had the same problem with a different spammer. no matter what i did,
| i simply could
On 2001.12.06 20:23 dman wrote:
>
> I've been getting a bunch of spam on a certain list. The latest
> message has the following From: line :
i had the same problem with a different spammer. no matter what i did,
i simply could not get the procmail recipe to properly filter the
thing. i finall
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:01:36PM +, Pollywog wrote:
| On 2001.12.06 20:23 dman wrote:
| >
| > I've been getting a bunch of spam on a certain list. The latest
| > message has the following From: line :
| >
| > From: "Lisa J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >
| > (some have a different name, but th
dman wrote:
> I've been getting a bunch of spam on a certain list. The latest
> message has the following From: line :
>
> From: "Lisa J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (some have a different name, but the same address) I want to
> automatically file these in the bit-bucket. Should be
> straightfo
On 2001.12.06 20:23 dman wrote:
I've been getting a bunch of spam on a certain list. The latest
message has the following From: line :
From: "Lisa J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(some have a different name, but the same address) I want to
automatically file these in the bit-bucket. Should be
stra
21 matches
Mail list logo
