On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:14:34PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> > Mike Van Pelt writes:
> > >This is nuts. I'm going to have to back out 2.60 tonight
> > >if I can't get this resolved today. (Which I really hate
> > >to do; 2.60 does seem to catc
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:19:23AM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
> Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
> >It's still having spells of rejecting connections as
> >"it's busy" when CPU is less than 50%.
> >
> >(This is on a Solaris box.)
> >
> >
&
;s still having spells of rejecting connections as
"it's busy" when CPU is less than 50%.
(This is on a Solaris box.)
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:15:07AM -0700, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:49:24PM -0400, Colin A. Bartlett wrote:
> > SA 2.60 is much f
spam checking,
rather than rejecting connections? Or is this a milter
limitation?
--
Mike Van Pelt email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]phone: 408-433-4282
Pager: 800-533-4559 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or web www.skytel.com, pin 5334559
--
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:39:29AM -0500, Frank Pineau wrote:
> As long as people continue to respond to their spam by sending
> them money, then what message are they expected to get? That
> spamming makes money? I'd say they got that message.
An idea I've been flirting with for a while ...
Yo
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:31:28PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Mike Van Pelt wrote on Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:30:34 -0700:
>
> > There used to be rules for "forged from {aol,hotmail,yahoo,etc.}"
> > didn't there?
> >
>
> These are *not* "forge
03 20:01:23 -0400 (EST)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Piotr Ivette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There used to be rules for "forged from {aol,hotmail,yahoo,etc.}"
didn't there? Was this catching too much legit mail?
--
Mike Van Pelt email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
> >Spamassassin-talk mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
>
>
>
> ---
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCo
looked at briefly;
I don't recall what it was, but it was (1) advertised as Alpha
code, (2) didn't do body substitutions to put in the detailed
spam explanation, and (3) put its own "custom" header in
for spam, not the ones SpamAssassin does that I like.
--
Mike Van
ooks good.
I ran this past the PORN_6 rule that I modified, and it
caught this one.
/\b(?:\d+\+? xxx pictures|xxx photos?|rape vid|rape pic|(?:extreme|cruel.{0,3}) rape)/i
(Still on 2.31 for the time being... We're going to 2.43 soon.)
--
Mike Van Pelt email: [EMA
With
this design there isn't a good way to allow users to opt in our
out - they do not have Unix logins on the filter servers, and
many of them don't know what a Unix login is. Those who
complained they wanted off, we added a "whitelist_to" for them,
but this doesn
C headers aren't normally
included in the email.
Now, if there were some way to filter on the envelope
addresses, you could look at the RCPT TO of the SMTP
transaction. That's where the Bcc addresses actually live.
--
Mike Van Pelt
12 matches
Mail list logo
