[SAtalk] Markup Removal in Mutt

Anyone out there have a good way to automate markup removal in Mutt? The best I've come up with is a folder-hook for my SPAM trap folder that changes the $editor to a script that runs 'spamassassin -d' on the file that Mutt gives it. It works fine, but it would be nice to not have to clobber the ed

Re: [SAtalk] Blocking spam from High Speed Media (v2.43)

> Or just add > > sendfree.com REJECT > hi-speedmail REJECT > > to /etc/mail/access That didn't work . Though, Procmail filters set on the Reply-to field did the job. These folks have a pattern in their reply-to message. Regards, Somik --- Th

[SAtalk] Didn't Score High Enough: FW: Do You Need Any Golf Balls?

This managed to get through twice today. Here is the entire header (message below): (btw: I have two separate qmail-scanner instances. One runs virus scanning, one runs SA) Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 580 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003

[SAtalk] pyzor_path and dcc_path not privileged?, others questionable...

Looking at the current docs, pyzor_path and dcc_path appear to be listed in the non-privileged section of the config. I surely hope that is just a documentation typo as it is a gaping hole otherwise. Some others that seem to me like they should be considered privileged: *_timeout

Re: [SAtalk] Question on 2.5 Bayesian training for newbies?

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Frank Pineau wrote: > Since my users all POP their mail (and therefore don't have access to the > server SA is on), I'd be happier with a way for them to train SA > themselves by, say, forwarding spam (and/or) non-spam to a special > "training" email account that will then train

RE: [SAtalk] date -R an anachronism?

> -Original Message- > From: Michael Shields [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 31 December 2002 18:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] date -R an anachronism? > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: > > Note that 'date -R' is documentd

Re: [SAtalk] Question on 2.5 Bayesian training for newbies?

Theo Van Dinter wrote: Well, we're off discussing this issue at the moment. We're going back and forth between giving out a working, but generic (ie: not terrific) set of data which you can use to create a database, and enabling autotraining (so that your incoming messages will train the system

Re: [SAtalk] Question on 2.5 Bayesian training for newbies?

Since my users all POP their mail (and therefore don't have access to the server SA is on), I'd be happier with a way for them to train SA themselves by, say, forwarding spam (and/or) non-spam to a special "training" email account that will then train the filter without the admin's help. Anyone do

Re: [SAtalk] Question on 2.5 Bayesian training for newbies?

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:58:53AM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote: > When SA 2.50 goes live, will there be a way to get a pretrained generic > version or corpus to train with? I haven't gone live with my SA yet, still > trying different things in the little spare time I have, and I don't have a > corp

[SAtalk] Black list

Hi, folks: Where can I find the black list? Is there a way to disable it? Thanks in advance... --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Spamas

[SAtalk] Question on 2.5 Bayesian training for newbies?

When SA 2.50 goes live, will there be a way to get a pretrained generic version or corpus to train with? I haven't gone live with my SA yet, still trying different things in the little spare time I have, and I don't have a corpus. I think I remember a thread saying there was a public download of on

Re: [SAtalk] How's 2.50 shaping up?

Brian Kendig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm using SpamAssassin 2.43, and I'm noticing more and more spammers > adapting to it and slipping through the cracks. How's 2.50 shaping > up? Very nicely. > Is the development build stable and reliable enough to use without > incident? Maybe, but I