spamassassin 2.53 & MailScanner

[Julian Field]

At 15:40 13/05/2003, you wrote:
>Is there any visible evidence to be found that DCC is (not) working as it
>should? I can't see any changes in the mail headers or mail log.

You should start to see DCC turn up in the spam reports.




>On Fri, 9 May 2003, Julian Field wrote:
>
> > At 19:30 09/05/2003, you wrote:
> > >Stupid question maybe, but I see lots of messages about DCC. What is DCC
> > >and where can I find it?
> >
> > Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse
> > http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/
> >
> > SpamAssassin will use it if it is installed.
> > Download it from the link at the top of that web page, then
> > unpack it
> > cd into it
> > ./configure
> > make
> > make install
> >
> > (Oh, it requires GNU make)
> >
> > then edit spam.assassin.prefs.conf
> > Remove the line that sets the DCC rule to 0.
> > Add
> > dcc_path /usr/local/bin/dccproc
> >
> > Restart MailScanner.
> >
> > Please feel free to add this to the Faq-o-matic.
> >
> > >On Fri, 9 May 2003, Desai, Jason wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not a spamassassin expert, but from what I can tell by looking
> at the
> > > > list of tests it does (http://spamassassin.rediris.es/tests.html), many
> > > > tests score lower with "net".  I assume that "net" means you do some
> > > sort of
> > > > check over the internet, such as an RBL lookup or a DCC check.  So
> if you
> > > > only do RBL lookups but not DCC, Razor2, or Pyzor, some tests will
> score
> > > > even lower and may result in email not being tagged as spam.
> > > >
> > > > I was seeing a lot of spam get through until I installed DCC,
> Razor2, and
> > > > Pyzor.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Mike Kercher [mailto:mike at CAMAROSS.NET]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:31 PM
> > > > > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > > > > Subject: Re: [MAILSCANNER] spamassassin 2.53 & MailScanner
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I just installed DCC yesterday and am already seeing improved
> > > > > results.  You
> > > > > might give that a shot.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: MailScanner mailing list
> > > > > > [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ron E.
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 8:32 AM
> > > > > > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > > > > > Subject: spamassassin 2.53 & MailScanner
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just wondering if anyone out there has any suggestions for
> > > > > > improving/tweaking SpamAssassin (2.53) settings -- I am
> > > > > > running MailScanner & SpamAssassin 2.53 but still getting a
> > > > > > fair amount of spam not over the default score of 5, or
> > > > > > sometimes even with a negative score.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm running a pretty busy system that handles about 15-20k
> > > > > > messages per day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have tried lowering the score threshold but of course then
> > > > > > I get more false positives. I've seen mention that
> > > > > > SpamAssassin 2.60 is much improved but I hesitate to use it
> > > > > > at this point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One idea I had was enabling Vipul's Razor, but I've never
> > > > > > used it. Any input would be of interest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Ron
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > >believed to be clean.
> >
> > --
> > Julian Field
> > www.MailScanner.info
> > Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
> >
> >

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support