You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   338-362   363-387   388-412   413-437 
 438-462   463-487   488-512   513-537   538-562   563-587   588-612   613-637   638-662 
 663-687   688-712   713-737   738-762   763-787   788-812   813-837   838-862   863-870 
 
Author Message
25 new of 870 responses total.
other
response 363 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 06:14 UTC 2005

Backtalk authentication problem:

Also, response 'Post' buttons submit via http rather than https.
davel
response 364 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 16:45 UTC 2005

Re way back (out of my scrollback buffer) re my problem with ft "read since":
Joe, I did read the ft help.  (It didn't differ from my memory of Picospan
help on this issue, but it's been a few years since I looked at that.) 
"help read" referred me to (I think) "help range", which gave the format I was
trying as an example.
keesan
response 365 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 17:52 UTC 2005

My mailbox this morning was full because a friend sent me two photos, one of
which was about 400K and the other a bit smaller.  Please could the mail size
limit be given a high priority?  McNally, until then, could you explain
precisely how to set up a .procmailrc that will dump such mails?  I did not
follow the last explanation.  For the benefit of all email users here, please
also include the first three lines of .procmailrc and the last two. 
.forward is, I think  |/usr/bin/procmail     right?  This sends all incoming
mail to procmail to be filtered.  Maybe someone could run a script to set up
this sort of mail size filter for everyone until the exim one is working?

Why would 'cpl' dump a returned message from me?
tsty
response 366 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 18:57 UTC 2005

is there any sort of filtering mechanism creatable (by user or system)
that can mostly de-spam the stuff in 'plain ol mail'?
  
same as dpc and keesan, i am *really* getting slammmmmmmed/spammmmmed!
  
rcurl
response 367 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:00 UTC 2005

If I could just filter on "cum", it would take care of about half my spam.
mcnally
response 368 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:10 UTC 2005

> My mailbox this morning was full because a friend sent me two photos,
> one of which was about 400K and the other a bit smaller.  Please
> could the mail size limit be given a high priority? 
> 
> McNally, until then, could you explain precisely how to set up a
> .procmailrc that will dump such mails?

Try adding a recipe like this to test with:

 :0fw
 * > 50000
 /a/k/e/keesan/bigmail

Then send yourself two messages, one small one, one with at least 50 kbytes
of content.  The larger message should wind up in ~keesan/bigmail and not
in your inbox.  Once you're satisfied that it filters as you expect you can
change the destination file to /dev/null.
other
response 369 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:38 UTC 2005

367:  Do you get a lot of spam in Latin?
keesan
response 370 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:40 UTC 2005

I get a lot of spam with utf or iso on subject lines and just now one of my
two latest spams was about a cumshot but that is only about 5% of the spam.
Is there some way to set a filter to forward mails over 100K to another
address instead of a folder here?  They are usually photos from friends.
keesan
response 371 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:46 UTC 2005

Thanks Mike, that worked and I am now sending mails over 100K to /dev/null.
I notice that in my filter I am sending Larry Nigeria spam with 
the string ! polygon@..    WOuld I just put something like that in instead
of the /dev/null on the third line to forward big mails to myself at some
other address?  

If anyone else wants to use Mike's filter, be sure to also include the first
three lines of my .procmailrc and the last three lines (along with this filter
which is now in there) so that the rest of your mail will go to your inbox,
and change keesan to your login.  

The only problem with this method is that the mail does not bounce back to
the sender so they don't write and ask how come the mail bounced, but you can
check the log file daily and write people you know whose large mails bounced.

You also need the .forward file so that mail will go through procmail.
keesan
response 372 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:48 UTC 2005

Minor problem with Mike's filter:  Extraneous filter-flag ignored.  Does this
mean one of the characters in :0fw should be removed?  The filter works
anyway, letting through a small mail but diverting a big one.
blaise
response 373 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:55 UTC 2005

From the Procmail Quick Start
(http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs):

Matching a Word

If you want a recipe to match only the word test, rather than the string
test, surround test with the Procmail word delimiters \< and \> as in
the following:

:0:
* ^Subject:.*\<test\>
IN-testing

[end quote]

So to do what Rane is looking for would be

:0:
* ^Subject:.*\<cum\>
/dev/null

as a Procmail rule.

I highly recommend that anyone who wants to use Procmail for filtering
(whether spam or otherwise) read the Quick Start; it is very well
arranged to walk people new to Procmail through setting it up.
keesan
response 374 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:02 UTC 2005

Thanks for that info.  I have not needed to filter on cum because mail
containing it includes so many other easily filtered strings.

I removed fw from Mike's filter and it still works and no longer tells me
there is an extraneous filter-flag:  First line :0, second line * > 100000
third line /dev/null (I cannot type a colon at line beginning here).
blaise
response 375 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:03 UTC 2005

The best I can tell, you don't need either the f or the w flag in the
size-catching recipe.  Those are only needed when the action of the
recipe uses an external program, from what I can find.
blaise
response 376 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:04 UTC 2005

Note that the recipe I gave will match "cum" *in the subject line only*,
and *only as a word by itself*.  (For example, I didn't want to match
"cumulative"...)
keesan
response 377 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:09 UTC 2005

Handy recipe, thanks. 
I just replaced /dev/null with ! followed by my other email address and
the log file now tells me it sent my mail over 100K to
Folder: /usr/sbin/senmail -oi keesan@ (my other address).
Does this mean it was forwarded to that address?  It was not there when I
checked shortly afterwards.  mailsize was 267K.
But if Grex puts a limit on outgoing mail size will this no longer work?
At that point I guess I could just remove the filter and let friends write
to ask me why their mail bounced.  Or is the limit only on mail going into
the inbox, not mail being forwarded?

Is there some way to filter on words starting in c.al so as to dump mail with
variations on cialis but not special?  

Perhaps we should have a new mail filtering item, at least until grex gets
a spam filter working again.  
keesan
response 378 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:11 UTC 2005

I was able to forward the large mail to my other address with
First line:  :0
Second line:  * > 100000
THird line:  !  (my other address)
It would be nice if this continued to work after grex got back its mail size
limits so that big mails would go to me instead of the sender.
mcnally
response 379 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:18 UTC 2005

  Sorry about the extraneous flags, I just quickly adapted from another
  recipe in my .procmailrc and since I'm at work I didn't have time to
  test fully.

  Glad it helped, though..
blaise
response 380 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:21 UTC 2005

Yes, you can filter on words starting in c.al, but that will catch (for
example) "challenge"...  If you really want to, it would be "\<c.al". 
(The \< and \> don't need to be matched, any more than ^ and $ need to.
 \< means the start of a word, just as ^ means the start of a line, and
\> means the end of a word, just as $ means the end of a line.)
keesan
response 381 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:18 UTC 2005

So how does \< differ from '\  ' (a blank space)?
TO whoever said r and R behave differently in pine (one replies to everyone
and one to just the sender) they behave the same for me.  Maybe you have
configured your Pine to act differently.
I was expecting my new filter to forward a mail with attached .tif file
someone said he just sent me here, but he forgot to attach the .tif file.
janc
response 382 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:23 UTC 2005

Could we find another item to discuss spam filter rules and procmail syntax?
I'm scanning this item looking for system bugs to fix, and wonderful though
procmail is, it isn't really in that category, and it's about half this item.
Thanks.
blaise
response 383 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:29 UTC 2005

Sorry, I suggested that and then continued to answer the questions. 
I'll stop now.
janc
response 384 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:45 UTC 2005

I fixed the https/http problem in vanilla.

Backtalk's "read since" logic has been flakey for a while.  I need to
revisit it.
albaugh
response 385 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 23:05 UTC 2005

> TO whoever said r and R behave differently in pine (one replies to everyone
 and one to just the sender) they behave the same for me. <

I didn't say that about pine, I said that about mail.  Yes, the little ole,
stupid, command line oriented vanilla mail reader/sender.
keesan
response 386 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 13 04:11 UTC 2005

Is there some way to get Pine to stop offering to reply to all recipients?
gelinas
response 387 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 13 05:14 UTC 2005

No, there isn't, Sindi.  Since it doesn't have separate commands for "reply
to all" and "reply to sender," it has to ask every time.

Dave, my comment on reading the ft help was directed as much at myself as it
was at you.  I also read it, without finding the answer to date ranges. :(
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   338-362   363-387   388-412   413-437 
 438-462   463-487   488-512   513-537   538-562   563-587   588-612   613-637   638-662 
 663-687   688-712   713-737   738-762   763-787   788-812   813-837   838-862   863-870 
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss