On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:33:08PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Today I noticed those summaries were getting spamassassing scores in the
> 30 range. I ended up whitelisting myself, though that doesn't feel like
> a good idea -- now SA might mislearn spam subjects as ham, and any
> spammer who forge
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 19:33, Joey Hess wrote:
> Today I noticed those summaries were getting spamassassing scores in the
> 30 range. I ended up whitelisting myself, though that doesn't feel like
> a good idea -- now SA might mislearn spam subjects as ham, and any
> spammer who forges mail from me
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> The only negative rules will be: bayesian rules, bondedsender and
> habeas. Figuring how to autolearn ham (non-spam) is the only obstacle
> we still need to figure out.
This is fairly off topic, but the other day I tired of downloading all
my spam to check it for false posi
By the way some folks live in countries considered spam countries by
other people, and they can't get a email in edgewise to the high class
users.
By the way how about my http://jidanni.org/comp/spam/spamdealer.html
solution for the little guy, remote and without root.
--
http://jidanni.org/ Taiw
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:43:53PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > The only negative rules will be: bayesian rules, bondedsender and
> > habeas. Figuring how to autolearn ham (non-spam) is the only obstacle
> > we still need to figure out.
>
> Sure soun
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:18:49 +1000, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > There is no excuse for this. Access to servers that are not in
>> > spam lists is well available to Debian developers. I tunnel my
>> > outgoing mail through a s
On Friday 13 June 2003 05:13 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Oh, what the hell. This damn song won't get out of my head, so now you
> all get to be subjected to it to[1]:
FWIW, the original version of this song has also been in my head for weeks.
Thanks for digging up the full text :)
> 1: Misery lo
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> The only negative rules will be: bayesian rules, bondedsender and
> habeas. Figuring how to autolearn ham (non-spam) is the only obstacle
> we still need to figure out.
Sure sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater... but I
presume you all a
Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >
> > The 127th Ferengi rule of acquisition: Even if you got it for
> > free, you paid too much.
>
> But the Rule 37th says otherwise: "If it's free, take it and worry
> about hidden costs later".
>
> But the 96th confi
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:03:45AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:19:10PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > FWIW, the next version of spamassassin (2.60) will have no forgeable
> > negatively scoring rules. (ETA early-mid July)
>
> Just out of curiosity, how will this be acc
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:37:00AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > Given the ammount of spam that I get delived to my account via Debian
> > machines, I guess the reduction in bandwidth usage by master and murphy
> > is not to be taken lightly.
>
> The reduction happens in the output,
Which is
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:37, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > > account via Debian machines, I guess the reduction in bandwidth usage
> > > by master and murphy is not to be taken lightly.
> >
> > The bandwidth reduction will only happen if you decide to disc
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:37, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > account via Debian machines, I guess the reduction in bandwidth usage
> > by master and murphy is not to be taken lightly.
>
> The bandwidth reduction will only happen if you decide to discard the mail,
> since the mail will always be accepted,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:37:00AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> The bandwidth reduction will only happen if you decide to discard the
> mail, since the mail will always be accepted, scanned to find the IP
> which originated the message, the IP will be checked agains the
> database and then th
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:17:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Read a previous message by Duncan Findlay. He said that 39.2668% of
> all the spam might be blocked by using the DSBL, but doing that you
> would block 0.0185% of ham.
I just ran a quick test on my current email folders. At the
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:39:00PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> Hi.
[...]
I might thing I spoke BS on my proposal, since I have not heard any
comments...
mooch
--
Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:20:12PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:18:57AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > How can they say "no" to using some of them in /warn mode ... ?
>
> Santiago holds that more than half of the spam could be eventually
> avoided. I'd ver
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:11:22PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Given that it's been pointed out that the MTA supports per-user bouncing
> > of mail from open relays, and that it's very possible to use LDAP to
> > provide easy management of per-user preferences, why is there any need
> > to cont
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:19:10PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> FWIW, the next version of spamassassin (2.60) will have no forgeable
> negatively scoring rules. (ETA early-mid July)
Just out of curiosity, how will this be accomplished?
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:45:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>If some number of Debian developers utilizing blocking that has a
>false positive rate of as high as 2 per day by some estimates, do we
>as a body consider it acceptable if som
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There is no excuse for this. Access to servers that are not in spam
> > lists is well available to Debian developers. I tunnel my outgoing
> > mail through a server in Melbourne no matter where I am, this avoids
> > all issues of spam blockin
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:43:48 +1000, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> false positive rate of as high as 2 per day by some estimates, do
>> we as a body consider it acceptable if some percentage of Debian
>> developers:
>>
>> 1) Don't rece
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:45:02PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > But I definitely find spamassassin conceptually much better - because
> > it really takes a mail for what it is. It cannot be trapped.
> > Because if the DNSBL one day become a major problem to spammers, who
> >
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> false positive rate of as high as 2 per day by some estimates, do we
> as a body consider it acceptable if some percentage of Debian
> developers:
>
> 1) Don't receive a mail message from a fellow Debian developer
> because they unfortun
24 matches
Mail list logo
