You can subscribe to this list here.
2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(12) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
|
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
|
Oct
(20) |
Nov
(87) |
Dec
(326) |
2002 |
Jan
(209) |
Feb
(339) |
Mar
(259) |
Apr
(119) |
May
(133) |
Jun
(345) |
Jul
(238) |
Aug
(284) |
Sep
(110) |
Oct
(219) |
Nov
(120) |
Dec
(95) |
2003 |
Jan
(108) |
Feb
(265) |
Mar
(67) |
Apr
(74) |
May
(85) |
Jun
(73) |
Jul
(32) |
Aug
(114) |
Sep
(98) |
Oct
(58) |
Nov
(82) |
Dec
(88) |
2004 |
Jan
(75) |
Feb
(64) |
Mar
(99) |
Apr
(104) |
May
(32) |
Jun
(78) |
Jul
(66) |
Aug
(57) |
Sep
(40) |
Oct
(39) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
(22) |
2005 |
Jan
(20) |
Feb
(22) |
Mar
(12) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(17) |
Jun
(63) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(15) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(28) |
Dec
(2) |
2006 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(17) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(31) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(54) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(19) |
Nov
(14) |
Dec
(23) |
2007 |
Jan
(28) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(16) |
May
(15) |
Jun
(9) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(4) |
2008 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(8) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
|
Dec
(3) |
2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(8) |
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(4) |
2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
(4) |
Dec
|
2017 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(4) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2019 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2022 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2024 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Tor W. A. <ma...@br...> - 2011-06-13 12:16:14
|
On 13. juni 2011, at 12.51, Gordon Dickens wrote: > Hi Willy, > > Thanks for your prompt reply and suggestion! I had not run a discovery in a while so I ran it as follows: > razor-admin -home=/etc/mail/spamassassin/.razor -discover > > However, that didn't fix it. The GTUBE string still was not identified. It appears that e4 is not running at all. From my razor log: I'm not convinced Razor would trigger on a GTUBE string, however useful that would be. If GTUBE is a special case in the razor agent, please let me know. However, I have a couple of old spams saved to test things like this. One has a URL somewhere in it for e8 testing, the other one doesn't (for e4 testing): razor-check -d <spammail.txt When I test now it appears only engine 8 (e8) responds, but it doesn't care about mails without URLs. Thus no signature is created or checked for e8: Jun 13 13:57:18.821359 check[58527]: [ 6] Engine (8) didn't produce a signature for mail 1.0 There is nothing whatsoever about engine 4 (e4) in the debug output, except that the log claims the client supports it. Otherwise it's silent. Odd that Pyzor is working though. Razor 2.84 appears to work halfway. Nothing in my spamfolders are older than 14 days, so I can't go back to see when e4 signatures last worked. The last message in razor-users before this thread shows e4 did respond, so I'm not sure what's up. In short: I have no clue. -- Tor Willy Austerslått |
From: Gordon D. <go...@ma...> - 2011-06-13 11:13:12
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="Arial">BTW, here is my razor-agent.conf file:<br> <br> debuglevel = 5<br> identity = identity<br> ignorelist = 0<br> listfile_catalogue = servers.catalogue.lst<br> listfile_discovery = servers.discovery.lst<br> listfile_nomination = servers.nomination.lst<br> logfile = razor-agent.log<br> logic_method = 4<br> min_cf = ac<br> razordiscovery = discovery.razor.cloudmark.com<br> rediscovery_wait = 172800<br> report_headers = 1<br> turn_off_discovery = 0<br> use_engines = 4,8<br> whitelist = razor-whitelist<br> razorhome = /etc/mail/spamassassin/.razor/<br> <br> FYI,<br> <br> Gordon<br> <br> </font><br> On 06/13/2011 06:51 AM, Gordon Dickens wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4DF...@ma..." type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> Hi Willy,<br> <br> Thanks for your prompt reply and suggestion! I had not run a discovery in a while so I ran it as follows:<br> <style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">razor-admin -home=/etc/mail/spamassassin/.razor -discover</font></font></p> <br> However, that didn't fix it. The GTUBE string still was not identified. It appears that e4 is not running at all. From my razor log:<br> <br> Jun 13 06:40:55.294084 check[3854]: [ 5] Connecting to c302.cloudmark.com ...<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414454 check[3854]: [ 4] c302.cloudmark.com >> 37 server greeting: sn=C&srl=13227&a=1&a=cg&ep4=7542-10<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414644 check[3854]: [ 4] c302.cloudmark.com << 25<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414838 check[3854]: [ 5] mail 1.0 e8 got no sig<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414881 check[3854]: [ 5] No queries, no spam<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414927 check[3854]: [ 5] disconnecting from server c302.cloudmark.com<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414991 check[3854]: [ 4] c302.cloudmark.com << 5<br> <br> Do you have any other recommendations for getting it back operational?<br> <br> Thanks,<br> <br> Gordon<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> On 06/12/2011 03:06 PM, Tor Willy Austerslått wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:FB2...@br..." type="cite"> <div> <div>On 12. juni 2011, at 20.13, Gordon Dickens wrote:</div> <br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> <blockquote type="cite"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Arial">Everything appeared to be working fine with razor until sometimes earlier this year. While razor appears not to be working, pyzor and DCC have been working fine so I suspect something has changed with the way that cloudmark servers are handling razor.<br> <br> Please reply with your recommendations for getting razor back working properly.<br> </font></div> </blockquote> </div> <div><br> </div> <div>I had razor recognize a spam just a few minutes ago:</div> <div>Jun 12 20:33:06.073069 check[62918]: [ 3] mail 1 is known spam.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>If you sent a mail containing only the GTUBE string, the e8 server won't do the query in any case. Strange that there was no response from e4 though ...</div> <div><br> </div> <div>How long's it been since you did a discovery?</div> <div><br> </div> <div>-- </div> <div>Tor Willy Austerslått</div> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev">http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev</a></pre> <pre wrap=""> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Raz...@li...">Raz...@li...</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html> |
From: Gordon D. <go...@ma...> - 2011-06-13 10:52:19
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Hi Willy,<br> <br> Thanks for your prompt reply and suggestion! I had not run a discovery in a while so I ran it as follows:<br> <style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">razor-admin -home=/etc/mail/spamassassin/.razor -discover</font></font></p> <br> However, that didn't fix it. The GTUBE string still was not identified. It appears that e4 is not running at all. From my razor log:<br> <br> Jun 13 06:40:55.294084 check[3854]: [ 5] Connecting to c302.cloudmark.com ...<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414454 check[3854]: [ 4] c302.cloudmark.com >> 37 server greeting: sn=C&srl=13227&a=1&a=cg&ep4=7542-10<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414644 check[3854]: [ 4] c302.cloudmark.com << 25<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414838 check[3854]: [ 5] mail 1.0 e8 got no sig<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414881 check[3854]: [ 5] No queries, no spam<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414927 check[3854]: [ 5] disconnecting from server c302.cloudmark.com<br> Jun 13 06:40:55.414991 check[3854]: [ 4] c302.cloudmark.com << 5<br> <br> Do you have any other recommendations for getting it back operational?<br> <br> Thanks,<br> <br> Gordon<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> On 06/12/2011 03:06 PM, Tor Willy Austerslått wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:FB2...@br..." type="cite"> <div> <div>On 12. juni 2011, at 20.13, Gordon Dickens wrote:</div> <br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> <blockquote type="cite"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Arial">Everything appeared to be working fine with razor until sometimes earlier this year. While razor appears not to be working, pyzor and DCC have been working fine so I suspect something has changed with the way that cloudmark servers are handling razor.<br> <br> Please reply with your recommendations for getting razor back working properly.<br> </font></div> </blockquote> </div> <div><br> </div> <div>I had razor recognize a spam just a few minutes ago:</div> <div>Jun 12 20:33:06.073069 check[62918]: [ 3] mail 1 is known spam.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>If you sent a mail containing only the GTUBE string, the e8 server won't do the query in any case. Strange that there was no response from e4 though ...</div> <div><br> </div> <div>How long's it been since you did a discovery?</div> <div><br> </div> <div>-- </div> <div>Tor Willy Austerslått</div> </blockquote> </body> </html> |
From: Tor W. A. <ma...@br...> - 2011-06-12 19:33:02
|
On 12. juni 2011, at 20.13, Gordon Dickens wrote: > Everything appeared to be working fine with razor until sometimes earlier this year. While razor appears not to be working, pyzor and DCC have been working fine so I suspect something has changed with the way that cloudmark servers are handling razor. > > Please reply with your recommendations for getting razor back working properly. I had razor recognize a spam just a few minutes ago: Jun 12 20:33:06.073069 check[62918]: [ 3] mail 1 is known spam. If you sent a mail containing only the GTUBE string, the e8 server won't do the query in any case. Strange that there was no response from e4 though ... How long's it been since you did a discovery? -- Tor Willy Austerslått |
From: Gordon D. <go...@ma...> - 2011-06-12 18:25:42
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="Arial">I have been using razor2 with spamassassin for about 4 years on a CentOS 5.x system. I am currently running spamassassin 3.3.1 with razor 2.84 from the rpmforge repo. In any event, I recently noticed that razor is not showing up much in my logs catching spam. So, I did some testing with the gtube.txt spam file and razor is not catching the gtube.txt spam file either. When I send an email with gtube.txt, then the razor logs say: "</font><font face="Arial">mail 1.0 e8 got no sig" and "</font><font face="Arial">No queries, no spam". Here is an excerpt from my razor-agent.log file when the gtube.txt spam file is sent:</font><br> <font face="Arial"><br> Jun 12 13:57:30.844373 check[11031]: [ 5] Connecting to c303.cloudmark.com ...<br> Jun 12 13:57:30.949209 check[11031]: [ 4] c303.cloudmark.com >> 37 server greeting: sn=C&srl=13227&a=1&a=cg&ep4=7542-10<br> Jun 12 13:57:30.949489 check[11031]: [ 4] c303.cloudmark.com << 25<br> Jun 12 13:57:30.949770 check[11031]: [ 5] mail 1.0 e8 got no sig<br> Jun 12 13:57:30.949834 check[11031]: [ 5] No queries, no spam<br> Jun 12 13:57:30.949900 check[11031]: [ 5] disconnecting from server c303.cloudmark.com<br> Jun 12 13:57:30.949997 check[11031]: [ 4] c303.cloudmark.com << 5<br> <br> Everything appeared to be working fine with razor until sometimes earlier this year. While razor appears not to be working, pyzor and DCC have been working fine so I suspect something has changed with the way that cloudmark servers are handling razor.<br> <br> Please reply with your recommendations for getting razor back working properly.<br> <br> Thanks,<br> <br> Gordon Dickens<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> </font> </body> </html> |
From: Catalin C. <da...@gm...> - 2010-05-31 08:40:54
|
Hello, On a RAZOR Check test we got the following response: May 31 11:01:21.044243 check[1359]: [ 6] -a=c&e=4&ep4=7542-10&s=FxupY3CrG_jPhmM_oqTFgPZLEgEA a=c&e=8&s=41Dr2IFv8cUA a=c&e=8&s=G90YD_Ns8cUA a=c&e=4&ep4=7542-10&s=0UNezv5b6KiISgimLsy2IXzpguIA a=c&e=8&s=41Dr2IFv2EIA a=c&e=8&s=G90YD_Ns2EIA . May 31 11:01:21.428958 check[1359]: [ 4] c303.cloudmark.com >> 46 May 31 11:01:21.429072 check[1359]: [ 6] response to sent.8 -p=0 p=1&cf=44 p=0 p=0 p=1&cf=44 p=0 . May 31 11:01:21.429542 check[1359]: [ 6] mail 1.0 e=4 sig=FxupY3CrG_jPhmM_oqTFgPZLEgEA: sig not found. May 31 11:01:21.429632 check[1359]: [ 6] mail 1.0 e=8 sig=41Dr2IFv8cUA: Is spam: cf 44 >= min_cf 21 May 31 11:01:21.429691 check[1359]: [ 6] mail 1.0 e=8 sig=G90YD_Ns8cUA: sig not found. May 31 11:01:21.429755 check[1359]: [ 6] mail 1.1 e=4 sig=0UNezv5b6KiISgimLsy2IXzpguIA: sig not found. May 31 11:01:21.429815 check[1359]: [ 6] mail 1.1 e=8 sig=41Dr2IFv2EIA: Is spam: cf 44 >= min_cf 21 May 31 11:01:21.429871 check[1359]: [ 6] mail 1.1 e=8 sig=G90YD_Ns2EIA: sig not found. May 31 11:01:21.429943 check[1359]: [ 7] method 4: mail 1.0: no-contention part, spam=1 May 31 11:01:21.429993 check[1359]: [ 7] method 4: mail 1.1: no-contention part, spam=1 May 31 11:01:21.430041 check[1359]: [ 7] method 4: mail 1: a non-contention part was spam, mail spam May 31 11:01:21.430090 check[1359]: [ 3] mail 1 is known spam. May 31 11:01:21.430147 check[1359]: [ 5] disconnecting from server c303.cloudmark.com May 31 11:01:21.430255 check[1359]: [ 4] c303.cloudmark.com << 5 May 31 11:01:21.430305 check[1359]: [ 6] a=q May 31 11:01:21.430513 check[1359]: [ 8] razor-check finished successfully. I have 2 questions: 1) is there any delisting procedure we can follow in order to get delisted for the particular message 2) what is the lifetime of a listing. How long does it take for the "listing" to fade out ? Calling razor-revoke did not help. Thank you. -- Catalin Constantin |
From: Daniel L. <le...@ja...> - 2010-02-16 13:23:22
|
---------------------------------------------------- JAM Software GmbH Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Joachim Marder Max-Planck-Str. 22 * 54296 Trier * Germany Tel: 0651-145-653 -0 * Fax: 0651-145-653 -29 Handelsregister Nr. HRB 4920 (AG Wittlich) http://www.jam-software.de |
From: Walkie <wa...@ma...> - 2009-11-04 15:40:09
|
Hello, i did registered on razor2 reporting service by this e-mail. Recently my server hdd died. With all account information. I found a hand written password on a paper, but when i did enter it in identity, the razor service report 214 error. Possibly I did wrote it with a one letter different than that i did enter when was registering. I have about 1000 reported spams, with only false negative, and ever on that i did make revoke. If possible, I want use that account in future, but can the password be recovered? Thanks. |
From: John B. <opt...@go...> - 2009-05-05 20:55:34
|
subscription |
From: Alex S. <wo...@wo...> - 2009-03-06 17:15:58
|
Hi there! When I subscribe to any of the Gentoo mailing lists, the confirmation email I get seems to be always treated as SPAM. One example is attached, along with the result of razor-check -d. You can get your own by sending an email to gen...@li.... I also ran razor-check on another server which I did not configure, just to make sure it is no stupid error on my side. How can this happen? Please excuse my ignorance - I am a happy razor user for years, but did not dig into details of how it works. I just installed it and it seemed to work just fine. I was under the impression that it only reports mails that have been reported by a human as SPAM - well, mails that have the same hash as such a mail, but those hashes should be quite unique I guess. But these confirmation mails have my email address in the body, so noone could possibly have reported this as SPAM. And now that I checked the logs, I found another mail from today that is a false positive. It came from the Fedora mailing list, and a reply to it was also marked as SPAM. I also attached those mails. So, what's wrong with these mails? Wonko |
From: Rasmus S. <ra...@ga...> - 2008-12-29 06:50:29
|
I'm also missing a server greeting once in a while. A bit more often than 1 out of 5 as Hendrik Schumacer experiences with c303.cloudmark.net here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=23191d5c353f2dad5117334c94811cb7.squirrel%40www.activeframe.de&forum_name=razor-users I'm using Razor2 2.84, SpamAssassin 3.2.5 and Perl 5.8.8 Here's some debugging output from a mailscan that goes haywire: Dec 26 20:52:17.586908 check[71557]: [ 2] [bootup] Logging initiated LogDebugLevel=5 to file:razor-agent.log Dec 26 20:52:17.587441 check[71557]: [ 5] computed razorhome=, conf=, ident=identity Dec 26 20:52:17.588375 check[71557]: [ 5] Can't read file /servers.discovery.lst: No such file or directory Dec 26 20:52:17.588545 check[71557]: [ 5] Can't read file /servers.nomination.lst: No such file or directory Dec 26 20:52:17.588705 check[71557]: [ 5] Can't read file /servers.catalogue.lst: No such file or directory Dec 26 20:52:17.588901 check[71557]: [ 5] no listfile: servers.catalogue.lst Dec 26 20:52:17.589107 check[71557]: [ 5] Connecting to discovery.razor.cloudmark.com ... Dec 26 20:52:17.785213 check[71557]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com >> 0 server greeting: Dec 26 20:52:17.785362 check[71557]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com << 12 Dec 26 20:52:17.785597 check[71557]: [ 5] _read: connection_closed And for informational purposes here's one that's ok, with exact same setup: Dec 26 21:49:32.538759 check[83113]: [ 2] [bootup] Logging initiated LogDebugLevel=5 to file:razor-agent.log Dec 26 21:49:32.546787 check[83113]: [ 5] computed razorhome=, conf=, ident=identity Dec 26 21:49:32.547497 check[83113]: [ 5] Can't read file /servers.discovery.lst: No such file or directory Dec 26 21:49:32.547648 check[83113]: [ 5] Can't read file /servers.nomination.lst: No such file or directory Dec 26 21:49:32.547791 check[83113]: [ 5] Can't read file /servers.catalogue.lst: No such file or directory Dec 26 21:49:32.547971 check[83113]: [ 5] no listfile: servers.catalogue.lst Dec 26 21:49:32.548159 check[83113]: [ 5] Connecting to discovery.razor.cloudmark.com ... Dec 26 21:49:33.199625 check[83113]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com >> 35 server greeting: sn=D&srl=570&a=1&a=cg&ep4=7542-10^M Dec 26 21:49:33.199783 check[83113]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com << 12 Dec 26 21:49:33.295701 check[83113]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com >> 71 Dec 26 21:49:33.295903 check[83113]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com << 12 Dec 26 21:49:33.390551 check[83113]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com >> 91 Dec 26 21:49:33.390773 check[83113]: [ 5] disconnecting from server discovery.razor.cloudmark.com Dec 26 21:49:33.390869 check[83113]: [ 4] discovery.razor.cloudmark.com << 5 [...] I've also posted this as a bug to the SpamAssassin guys, since this error in Razor in conjunction with a bad SIGPIPE handler in SpamAssassin has caused me to loose emails. The error that has been logged with SpamAssassin can be found here: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6033 But can someone look into why we are experiencing missing server greetings? Thanks! Best regards Rasmus Skaarup |
From: Hendrik S. <hs...@ac...> - 2008-12-28 23:41:21
|
Hi, I run Razor2 2.81 with SpamAssassin 3.2.5 and Perl 5.8.8. Since about three weeks I am getting the following error through SpamAssassin (SysLog): [ 1] Couldn't parse server greeting The error is produced by Razor2 because the server greeting is empty: [ 1] entered parse_greeting() This only happens occasionally and only with the server c303.cloudmark.com. About every fifth connect to c303.cloudmark.com produces the error. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to solve this or should I just ignore the error (Razor2 seems to just connect to the next server) or remove this server from the server list? Thanks in advance, Hendrik Schumacher |
From: Johan B. <joh...@gm...> - 2008-12-11 13:39:48
|
Hi all, I have a problem with getting spamassassin to find the razor-agent.conf When running "spamassassin -D < testmail.txt" it says: [22640] warn: razor2: razor2 check failed: No such file or directory razor2: Can't read conf file: = /etc/razor/razor-agent.conf at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Razor2.pm line 326. The config exists and i have been running -create, register & discover. What could cause this? The system is running centos 5.2. Best regards Johan Borch |
From: Mike B. <mb...@bu...> - 2008-10-27 15:52:04
|
You can report them as ham, rather than spam...however, if Razor is listing your emails, then chances are that those emails have been reported to the razor database, by multiple people, as spam. Assuming that your emails are not, actually spam, then multiple people would have to use the razor reporting tool to revoke the spam entry. > Good Day! > > I had a problem with Razor, please send me suggestions what to do. > > My HTML emails were being detected by Razor2, what will I do to make free > from it? > > Spam Assasin Spam Check goes, > > (1.6)BODY: Razor2 gives confidence between 51 and 100 [cf: 100] > (0.9)Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) > > Is there any possible means to make free from this detection? > Do I need to make any chsnges with my Email Encoding? > > Please provide me information. > Thanks, > > > Regards, > > Lemuel > > Chat online and in real-time with friends and family! Windows Live > Messenger > > _________________________________________________________________ > Easily edit your photos like a pro with Photo Gallery. > http://get.live.com/photogallery/overview------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/_______________________________________________ > Razor-users mailing list > Raz...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users > -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org To be notified of updates to the web site, visit: https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update or send a blank email message to: sit...@bu... |
From: Lemuel C. <lca...@li...> - 2008-10-27 13:43:44
|
From: lca...@li... To: raz...@li... Subject: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:27:38 +0800 Good Day! I had a problem with Razor, please send me suggestions what to do. My HTML emails were being detected by Razor2, what will I do to make free from it? Spam Assasin Spam Check goes, (1.6)BODY: Razor2 gives confidence between 51 and 100 [cf: 100] (0.9)Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) Is there any possible means to make free from this detection? Do I need to make any chsnges with my Email Encoding? Please provide me information. Thanks, Regards, Lemuel Chat online and in real-time with friends and family! Windows Live Messenger _________________________________________________________________ Easily edit your photos like a pro with Photo Gallery. http://get.live.com/photogallery/overview |
From: Matt K. <mke...@ev...> - 2008-08-04 15:41:08
|
Petar Bogdanovic wrote: > Hi, > > during the past few days I reported a few messages to razor. Today I > checked the same mails and it seems that razor still doesn't consider > them as spam. > > So I ask myself if my reports were accepted or if it just takes a while > until this happens. Well, generally you'd also needs someone else, or many people, to report the same message. Razor is a voting system, after all. So, the biggest cause of time isn't the speed of razor, it's the speed of reports and the volume of them. This works well for high-volume spam runs, and tends to have a low FP rate as most personal emails are unique, however, it also doesn't do so well against low-volume spam. |
From: Petar B. <pe...@sm...> - 2008-08-04 14:22:12
|
Hi, during the past few days I reported a few messages to razor. Today I checked the same mails and it seems that razor still doesn't consider them as spam. So I ask myself if my reports were accepted or if it just takes a while until this happens. Thanks, Petar |
From: www.isp2dial.com <ja...@is...> - 2008-03-29 16:16:45
|
I used razor-admin to register my email address. And now I want to change the registered password. But I don't see any way to change it. How do I change the registered password? -- Internet service http://www.isp2dial.com/ |
From: Jim H. - U. H. <hos...@uu...> - 2008-02-07 20:28:27
|
> -----Original Message----- > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:51:47PM -0600, Jim Hermann - UUN > Hostmaster wrote: > > The RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 and RAZOR2_IGNORE were my custom > RAZOR rules. I > > could not get RAZOR2_IGNORE consistently to recognize when > to ignore the > > RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 results. > > > > meta RAZOR2_IGNORE2 RAZOR2_CHECK + MIME_HTML_MOSTLY > 1 > > a) Eww. RAZOR2_CHECK && MIME_HTML_MOSTLY > b) MIME_HTML_MOSTLY probably doesn't help you with non-HTML > mails (I'd have to > look at the rule to figure out what it does) > c) this feels like something razor-whitelist could help with, > at least if it's > a consistent checksum. Vipul told me that razor-whitelist does not support checksums anymore. Even if it did, the blank checksum changes with each version of MS Outlook and each default FONT. MIME_HTML_MOSTLY works some of the time because text length is zero or 1. Here is the content of the blank message from MS Outlook: ----end of headers---- This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C69F5D.B03731E0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0002_01C69F5D.B03731E0" ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C69F5D.B03731E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C69F5D.B03731E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY><FONT face=3D"Maiandra GD"></FONT></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C69F5D.B03731E0-- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C69F5D.B03731E0 Content-Type: application/msword; [snip] Jim |
From: Theo V. D. <fel...@kl...> - 2008-02-07 19:56:40
|
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:51:47PM -0600, Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster wrote: > The RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 and RAZOR2_IGNORE were my custom RAZOR rules. I > could not get RAZOR2_IGNORE consistently to recognize when to ignore the > RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 results. > > meta RAZOR2_IGNORE2 RAZOR2_CHECK + MIME_HTML_MOSTLY > 1 a) Eww. RAZOR2_CHECK && MIME_HTML_MOSTLY b) MIME_HTML_MOSTLY probably doesn't help you with non-HTML mails (I'd have to look at the rule to figure out what it does) c) this feels like something razor-whitelist could help with, at least if it's a consistent checksum. -- Randomly Selected Tagline: "IBM: It may be slow, but it's hard to use." - Andrew Tannenbaum |
From: Jim H. - U. H. <hos...@uu...> - 2008-02-07 19:51:58
|
> -----Original Message----- > On Tuesday, 5. February 2008 18:15:24 you wrote: > > I used to have higher SA scores for 95-100% spam confidence. > > > > However, I found that I could not increase the score very much. > > Occasionally, I would get a false positive for a blank > email, no text with > > a few HTML tags and just attachments. The Razor database regularly > > contains data that indicates that a blank email is 100% > known spam. There > > was no way to prevent the false positive because the > whitelist feature for > > hash values was removed. I also tried combining scores for > messages with a > > small amount of text and positive razor hits, but that > allows too much > > spam. > > Hmm, that would be a little show stopper. > > What did the other tests of SpamAssassin report for such mails? > I can imagine they report it as spam, too. > > Thomas Here is an example of the SpamAssassin report for a blank email with Word attachment: pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ----------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 HTML_90_100 BODY: Message is 90 HTML -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1 [cf: 100] 6.1 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 Razor2 gives confidence between 91 and 100 [cf: 100] 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 1.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) -1.5 RAZOR2_IGNORE Message in RAZOR2 and has very little text ----- The RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 and RAZOR2_IGNORE were my custom RAZOR rules. I could not get RAZOR2_IGNORE consistently to recognize when to ignore the RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 results. meta RAZOR2_IGNORE RAZOR2_CHECK + HTML_90_100 > 1 describe RAZOR2_IGNORE Message in RAZOR2 and has very little text tflags RAZOR2_IGNORE net meta RAZOR2_IGNORE2 RAZOR2_CHECK + MIME_HTML_MOSTLY > 1 describe RAZOR2_IGNORE2 Message in RAZOR2 and has very little text2 tflags RAZOR2_IGNORE2 net full RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 eval:check_razor2_range('','00','01') tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 net describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 Razor2 gives confidence between 00 and 01 full RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 eval:check_razor2_range('','02','10') tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 net describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 Razor2 gives confidence between 02 and 10 full RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 eval:check_razor2_range('','11','50') tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 net describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 Razor2 gives confidence between 11 and 50 full RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 eval:check_razor2_range('','51','90') tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 net describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 Razor2 gives confidence between 51 and 90 full RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 eval:check_razor2_range('','91','100') tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 net describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 Razor2 gives confidence between 91 and 100 Jim |
From: Thomas J. <tho...@in...> - 2008-02-07 15:53:26
|
Hello Jim, On Tuesday, 5. February 2008 18:15:24 you wrote: > I used to have higher SA scores for 95-100% spam confidence. > > However, I found that I could not increase the score very much. > Occasionally, I would get a false positive for a blank email, no text with > a few HTML tags and just attachments. The Razor database regularly > contains data that indicates that a blank email is 100% known spam. There > was no way to prevent the false positive because the whitelist feature for > hash values was removed. I also tried combining scores for messages with a > small amount of text and positive razor hits, but that allows too much > spam. Hmm, that would be a little show stopper. What did the other tests of SpamAssassin report for such mails? I can imagine they report it as spam, too. Thomas |
From: Jim H. - U. H. <hos...@uu...> - 2008-02-06 13:49:01
|
-----Original Message----- From: 'Thomas Jarosch'; '' Subject: RE: [Razor-users] Spamassassin's Razor scores > Hello together, > > I'm wondering if it would make sense to add additional rules > for 95% to 100% > spam confidence? Is anybody already using a setup like that? > Any drawbacks? > > Cheers, > Thomas Thomas, I used to have higher SA scores for 95-100% razor spam confidence. However, I found that I could not increase the score very much. Occasionally, I would get a false positive for a blank email, no text with a few HTML tags and just attachments. The Razor database regularly contains data that indicates that a blank email is 100% known spam. There was no way to prevent the false positive because the whitelist feature for hash values was removed. I also tried combining scores for messages with a small amount of text and positive razor hits, but that allows too much spam. Jim |
From: Jim H. - U. H. <hos...@uu...> - 2008-02-05 17:21:14
|
-----Original Message----- From: 'Thomas Jarosch'; '' Subject: RE: [Razor-users] Spamassassin's Razor scores > Hello together, > > I'm wondering if it would make sense to add additional rules > for 95% to 100% > spam confidence? Is anybody already using a setup like that? > Any drawbacks? > > Cheers, > Thomas Thomas, I used to have higher SA scores for 95-100% spam confidence. However, I found that I could not increase the score very much. Occasionally, I would get a false positive for a blank email, no text with a few HTML tags and just attachments. The Razor database regularly contains data that indicates that a blank email is 100% known spam. There was no way to prevent the false positive because the whitelist feature for hash values was removed. I also tried combining scores for messages with a small amount of text and positive razor hits, but that allows too much spam. Jim |
From: Matt K. <mke...@ev...> - 2008-02-05 16:32:47
|
Thomas Jarosch wrote: > Hello Matt, > > > Interesting results! A separate category for 100% could improve things I > guess. Could you make another run with the spam-data from the weekend? This is everything from Jan 30 13:09 until Feb 05 11:30: e4 total hits: 6457 e4 cf 100: 5398 e4 cf 90-99: 87 e4 cf 80-89: 74 e4 cf 70-79: 123 e4 cf 60-69: 98 e4 cf 50-59: 162 e4 cf 40-49: 109 e4 cf 30-39: 275 e4 cf 20-29: 131 e4 cf 10-19: 0 e4 cf 0-9: 0 --------------------------- e8 total hits: 10470 e8 cf 100: 9272 e8 cf 90-99: 125 e8 cf 80-89: 149 e8 cf 70-79: 144 e8 cf 60-69: 119 e8 cf 50-59: 204 e8 cf 40-49: 206 e8 cf 30-39: 184 e8 cf 20-29: 67 e8 cf 10-19: 0 e8 cf 0-9: 0 *very* strong bias towards cf=100.. > We have a busy mailserver here, if you send me your patch > I'll try to gather some data, too. I'll send that as a separate email, don't want to clutter the list with attachments unless someone from cloudmark asks me to. |