headers
Steve Price | 1 Dec 2002 01:11

Re: Re: >>14.9 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES...PLUS $2,000 WORTH OF FREE EMAIL MARKETING SOFTWARE!

On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 11:43:28PM +0000, mb/vipul <at> dcs.qmul.ac.uk wrote:
>>>
>>> razor'd by whom? Should not sf lists be filtered by razor in the first place?
>>
>>It could have been razor'd either by razor running on the recipient's
>>machine or by sourceforge.  It really doesn't matter.  The point was
> 
> er.. to be razored by SF one would like a feature which doesn't exist.
> 
> The Aggregator, which "will be released with the next major release of
> Razor2 agents" (ha ha), is required for efficient deployment of Razor on
> an MTA (which is surely where it belongs--let the MTA do the network
> traffic and add an "X-Razor-Warning" header once per message, so that your
> .procmailrc or Sieve script (or whatever) can perform very simple checks).

If you need this then why wait for The Aggregator?  Use something
that already exists.  Maybe I'm missing your point but I do something
very similar With postfix via a content_filter.  With sendmail it is
called a milter.  There's probably equivalents in exim, qmail, ... as
well.

-steve

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Get the new Palm Tungsten T 
handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! 
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0002en
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
cmeclax po'u le cmevi'u ke'umri | 1 Dec 2002 04:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: >>14.9 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES...PLUS $2,000 WORTH OF FREE EMAIL MARKETING SOFTWARE!


de'i Saturday 30 November 2002 18:43 la mb/vipul <at> dcs.qmul.ac.uk cusku di'e
> On Nov 29 Steve Price wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:13:06PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> razor'd by whom? Should not sf lists be filtered by razor in the first
> >> place?
> >
> >It could have been razor'd either by razor running on the recipient's
> >machine or by sourceforge.  It really doesn't matter.  The point was
>
> er.. to be razored by SF one would like a feature which doesn't exist.

There is a way to modify the aliases file that feeds incoming mail to Mailman 
so that it feeds it instead to a procmail script, which calls Razor and then 
feeds the mail to Mailman.

cmeclax
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
mb/vipul | 1 Dec 2002 10:13
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: >>14.9 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES...PLUS $2,000 WORTH OF FREE EMAIL MARKETING SOFTWARE!

On Nov 30 Steve Price wrote:

>> an MTA (which is surely where it belongs--let the MTA do the network
>> traffic and add an "X-Razor-Warning" header once per message, so that your
>> .procmailrc or Sieve script (or whatever) can perform very simple checks).
>
>If you need this then why wait for The Aggregator?  Use something
>that already exists.  Maybe I'm missing your point but I do something
>very similar With postfix via a content_filter.  With sendmail it is
>called a milter.  There's probably equivalents in exim, qmail, ... as

milters etc are designed to be lightweight. Invoking perl for every
incoming message is not something I'd call lightweight!

Maybe I'm mistaken, and someone has daemonised razor while I wasn't
looking--but then that would I presume be called the Aggregator.

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
mb/vipul | 1 Dec 2002 10:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: >>14.9 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES...PLUS $2,000 WORTH OF FREE EMAIL MARKETING SOFTWARE!

>There is a way to modify the aliases file that feeds incoming mail to Mailman
>so that it feeds it instead to a procmail script, which calls Razor and then
>feeds the mail to Mailman.

So you are happy with

mail -> MTA -> Mailman -> procmail -> razor -> Mailman -> MTA -> procmail

...when...

mail -> MTA -> procmail
	|^
	V|
	"razord"

..would seem like an available option (where the vertical arrows
represent a simple IPC layer, rather than forking yet another process)?

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Aurangzeb M. Agha | 1 Dec 2002 19:15
Picon

Re: problem installing agents

Thanks for the suggestion. I gave this a shot, specifiying PERL5LIB at
almost every step along the way, but for some reason the Preproc dir just
can't be found.

I've gotten e-mail from others stating they have the same prob, so a
solution would be nice.

I've even tried moving the Preproc dir which _does_ exist to one of the
dirs in the  <at> INC, but the make install still makes no diff.

	Thx in Advance,
	Aurangzeb

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Kris Deugau wrote:

:"Aurangzeb M. Agha" wrote:
:> Also, the finding of deHTMLxs.pm seems to be a prob.  But I'm not clear on
:> why it's looking where it is.  From my home-dir, I ran:
:
:Not sure about your other problem;  installing to an arbitrary location
:as non-root while building RPM packages worked fine for me- after I
:fixed this little headache with deHTMLxs.pm...
:
:>  <at> INC doesn't include the i386-linux dir as one of the paths.  Is this
:> something that I need to resolve?
:
:>From the spec file for the RPM I built: (Mangled a little for clarity)
:
:eval `perl '-V:installsitearch'`
:make install PREFIX=/path/to/my/installtree \
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Andreas Schamanek | 1 Dec 2002 20:08
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

How much random noise can Razor2 handle?


Hi there,

  I recently received spam messages with big amounts of random noise
included (e.g.: message size (body only) 3900 bytes, actual text 200
bytes, 3700 bytes of random data).
It must be very difficult for an algorithm to decide what is noise
and what is not. Can Razor2 handle such mail? Does it make sense to
report these messages?

--

-- 
-- Andreas

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Craig Hughes | 1 Dec 2002 20:10

Re: Re: >>14.9 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES...PLUS $2,000 WORTH OF FREE EMAIL MARKETING SOFTWARE!

SpamAssassin effectively daemonizes razor if you use spamc/spamd -- 
Razor is pre-loaded along with all the other bits of perl which SA 
uses, and then at runtime the only thing fork/exec'd is a lightweight C 
process.  If you run one of the spamc-like milters, it doesn't even 
need to do that step...

C

On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 01:13 AM, mb/vipul <at> dcs.qmul.ac.uk wrote:

> On Nov 30 Steve Price wrote:
>
>>> an MTA (which is surely where it belongs--let the MTA do the network
>>> traffic and add an "X-Razor-Warning" header once per message, so 
>>> that your
>>> .procmailrc or Sieve script (or whatever) can perform very simple 
>>> checks).
>>
>> If you need this then why wait for The Aggregator?  Use something
>> that already exists.  Maybe I'm missing your point but I do something
>> very similar With postfix via a content_filter.  With sendmail it is
>> called a milter.  There's probably equivalents in exim, qmail, ... as
>
> milters etc are designed to be lightweight. Invoking perl for every
> incoming message is not something I'd call lightweight!
>
> Maybe I'm mistaken, and someone has daemonised razor while I wasn't
> looking--but then that would I presume be called the Aggregator.

-------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Anne Bennett | 2 Dec 2002 15:57
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: >>14.9 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES...PLUS $2,000 WORTH OF FREE EMAIL MARKETING SOFTWARE!


>>>> an MTA (which is surely where it belongs--let the MTA do the network
>>>> traffic and add an "X-Razor-Warning" header once per message,

>>> If you need this then why wait for The Aggregator?  Use something
>>> that already exists.  Maybe I'm missing your point but I do something
>>> very similar With postfix via a content_filter.  With sendmail it is
>>> called a milter.

>> milters etc are designed to be lightweight. Invoking perl for every
>> incoming message is not something I'd call lightweight!
>>
>> Maybe I'm mistaken, and someone has daemonised razor while I wasn't
>> looking--but then that would I presume be called the Aggregator.

> SpamAssassin effectively daemonizes razor if you use spamc/spamd -- 
> Razor is pre-loaded along with all the other bits of perl which SA 
> uses, and then at runtime the only thing fork/exec'd is a lightweight C 
> process.  If you run one of the spamc-like milters, it doesn't even 
> need to do that step...

And MIMEDefang does something similar using a multiplexor; in fact,
when the number of slaves is stable, no processes are fork/exec'd for
each message.  I have:

  sendmail
    -> (via socket) mimedefang's milter
      -> (via socket) mimedefang-multiplexor
        -> mimedefang slave, where a new one is spawned only if there
           isn't already a non-busy one available.  This perl program
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Terry Griffin | 2 Dec 2002 17:59

Empty MIME sections in 2.22

I'm still seeing a problem with empty MIME sections in 2.22. My
understand was that this has been fixed.

The message was multipart/mixed, the first section being empty
text/plain, the second section being application/octet-stream
(an MS XLS spreadsheet). Running razor-check with -d reports
these sigs:

Dec 02 08:51:55.842777 check[27678]: [ 8] mail 1.0 e2 sig:
g8RvZuwzdhL2kRn2QQWuq9RJ-8YA
Dec 02 08:51:55.842903 check[27678]: [ 8] mail 1.0 e4 sig:
g8RvZuwzdhL2kRn2QQWuq9RJ-8YA
Dec 02 08:51:55.843004 check[27678]: [ 8] mail 1.1 e2 sig:
X-_0AMPp3u1EGOwDIitLzbawJtYA
Dec 02 08:51:55.843088 check[27678]: [ 8] mail 1.1 e4 sig:
JnhwGymvpo8TMEPw3bQVBxr5qdgA

The response from truth.cloudmark.com was:

Dec 02 08:51:56.137960 check[27678]: [ 6] mail 1.0 e=2
sig=g8RvZuwzdhL2kRn2QQWuq9RJ-8YA: Is spam: cf 20 >= min_cf 1
Dec 02 08:51:56.138124 check[27678]: [ 6] mail 1.0 e=4
sig=g8RvZuwzdhL2kRn2QQWuq9RJ-8YA: Is spam: cf 20 >= min_cf 1
Dec 02 08:51:56.138213 check[27678]: [ 6] mail 1.1 e=2
sig=X-_0AMPp3u1EGOwDIitLzbawJtYA: sig not found.
Dec 02 08:51:56.138283 check[27678]: [ 6] mail 1.1 e=4
sig=JnhwGymvpo8TMEPw3bQVBxr5qdgA: sig not found.
Dec 02 08:51:56.138412 check[27678]: [ 7] method 4: mail 1.0:
no-contention part, spam=2
Dec 02 08:51:56.138481 check[27678]: [ 7] method 4: mail 1.1:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Web | 2 Dec 2002 19:45

error with perl 5.8 on make install

How can i resolf this issue ?

Files found in blib/arch: installing files in blib/lib into architecture
dependent library tree
Writing
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i686-linux/auto/razor-agents/.packlist
/usr/local/bin/perl -we 'exit unless -f $ARGV[0];' -e 'print "WARNING: I
have found an old package in\n";' -e 'print "\t$ARGV[0].\n";' -e 'print
"Please make sure the two installations are not conflicting\n";' \
       /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i686-linux/auto/razor-agents
/usr/local/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command" -e mkpath
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i686-linux
/usr/local/bin/perl -e '$\="\n\n";' -e 'print "=head2 ",
scalar(localtime), ": C<", shift, ">", " L<", $arg=shift, "|", $arg, ">";'
-e 'print "=over 4";' -e 'while (defined($key = shift) and defined($val =
shift)){print "=item *";print "C<$key: $val>";}' -e 'print "=back";' \
"Module" "razor-agents" \
       "installed into" "/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0" \
       LINKTYPE "dynamic" \
       VERSION "2.20" \
       EXE_FILES "bin/razor-client" \
       >> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i686-linux/perllocal.pod
echo Appending installation info to
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i686-linux/perllocal.pod
Appending installation info to
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i686-linux/perllocal.pod
blib/script/razor-client
Can't locate URI/Escape.pm in  <at> INC ( <at> INC contains: lib
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i686-linux /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i686-linux
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane