On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:40:04PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> b) nowadays, there's quite a lot of worry being expressed about false
> positives from over-zealous spamcop users nominating non-spam. We're
> already talking about zeroing out SPEWS, and Spamcop is #2 (as far as I
> can tell) in te
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 03:25:46PM +0200, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> This sounds like a really grave problem. Could you please open a bug in
> bugzilla.spamassassin.org? Quinn, do you run on Solaris, too?
Done, bug 1087.
>
> And there's really nothing in the syslog? If it's possible, could you p
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 03:01:43AM -0700, Quinn Vallance wrote:
> I maintain two relatively high volume mail servers both of which have
> been using Spamassassin for some time mow. Everything has always worked
> fine and I have always upgraded to the newest stable versions when released. I
> up
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:23:35PM +0200, Per Goetterup wrote:
> I'm using SpamAssassin and I'm also handling our abuse-mails, which is a
> somewhat bad combination because all complaint messages from SpamCop also gets
> tagged as spam, which in a way is correct but very unfortunate because then
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:10:48PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Yes, but that wasn't the question. ;) I know about formmail.cgi's
> security holes, but I've never seen one where the message comes first,
> then a blank "your message below" area.
>
> I wasn't sure if there was a section in for
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 12:34:00PM -0500, rODbegbie wrote:
> rules/60_whitelist.cf in CVS includes the line:
>
> whitelist_from *@yahoo-inc.com
>
> It's a site-wide default.
That's a general problem with wildcard (and auto) whitelists:
Only because it's a legitimate mailing list doesn't mean
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 01:18:06PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Well, you're right, the RFC2822 header change stuff might cause leading
> spaces to no longer be on the front of header values, but for the
> Message-Id line you quoted,
> "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" does match
> the regex in the rule, and
If I want to configure more relay lists (ORDB, e.g.), how should I scale down
the score? Or wouldn't you do that at all?
On a similar note, you might want to add
header X_OSIRU_NOCONFeval:check_rbl_results_for('relay', '127.0.0.7')
describe X_OSIRU_NOCONF DNSBL: sender subscribes to newslet
After running about a week of tests, I noticed the following missed very often.
1. German spams (not much you could do about it, and I'm not ready to run GA here
myself very often).
2. Spanish and South American spams (they *do* hit the US, don't they).
3. 419s. Has someone special rules for the
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 01:29:31PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Yeah, I'd seen this claim of non-compliant headers in a few places that
> seemed OK to me too -- The regex it's checking is pretty nasty though.
> I'll see if I can figure out what jm was trying to do there and fix it.
Forgive me, I
10 matches
Mail list logo
