Hi,
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:05:16 - "Alan Munday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With various threads talking, and questioning, about blacklists I have
> started to try and understand these a bit more.
[snip]
> What this does not make clear is if my firewall is rejecting mail against
> the first
With various threads talking, and questioning, about blacklists I have
started to try and understand these a bit more.
My own setup uses those lists given below, though these run from my firewall
mail proxy rather than from any of the mail handling applications.
>From this weeks mail log I have
Is there a way to apply blacklists in SpamAssassin? If there is, would
there be a way to apply them if mail is being delivered via Fetchmail
rather than through port 25 like a normal mail server? Cause I'm trying to
filter mail on a machine that sits tucked behind a firewall and retrieves
ma
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 04:31:54PM +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> > > Razor Cause SA: 87 (2.1 %)
>
> So, if I interpret this correctly, it made a difference for only 2%
> of the spam?
Correct. 2.1% of the spam that was caught by SA wouldn't have been if
Razor wasn't installed.
--
Randomly
wrote on Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:29:26 -0800:
> i gather you are looking to reduce the cost of spam filtering,
> by cutting out inefficient or costly tests.
>
Absolutely, yes. Thanks for all answers. I think I just leave it now
as is, so not adding any dcc/razer/pyzor tests and also disabling the
d
Bolero (Kai Maillists) wrote on Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:40:52 +0100:
> > Razor Not SA : 1 (0.0 %)
> > Razor Cause SA: 87 (2.1 %)
>
So, if I interpret this correctly, it made a difference for only 2%
of the spam?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-01-09 15:02:25 -0500]:
>
> Stats since 2002-12-09
> Scores: 0.7 19 45
> Total Messages: 4213
> SA Caught : 4102(97.4 %)
> Razor Caught : 3237(76.8 %)
> Razor Not SA : 1 (0.0 %)
> Razor Cause SA: 87 (2.1 %)
Very nice.
I ch
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:45:02PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> should i read this as 76.8% of total messages received were caught by
> razor?
For me anyway.
> (should i believe that only 100%-97.4% of your messages are non-spam,
> only 111 messages in the last month? maybe i don't understan
thank you and martin for quantitating this.
but...
should i read this as 76.8% of total messages received were caught by
razor?
(should i believe that only 100%-97.4% of your messages are non-spam,
only 111 messages in the last month? maybe i don't understand what the
*total* represents.)
(als
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:27:42PM +, Martin Radford wrote:
> Be that as it may, I still find that around 50% of my spam is caught
> by Razor.
Stats since 2002-12-09
Scores: 0.7 19 45
Total Messages: 4213
SA Caught : 4102(97.4 %)
Razor Caught : 3237(76.8 %)
Razor Not SA :
At Thu Jan 9 04:29:26 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> my impression (not from measuring, just from looking at spam) is that
> the checksum databases are relatively inefficient because spammers
> have started to routinely introduce random components into the message
> body such as customized gr
i gather you are looking to reduce the cost of spam filtering,
by cutting out inefficient or costly tests.
my impression (not from measuring, just from looking at spam) is that
the checksum databases are relatively inefficient because spammers
have started to routinely introduce random components
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:31:51AM +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> seems to imply that just setting to 0 disables the test. Does it
> really *disable* the test, so that it's not done at all or just stop
> it from scoring? Of course, it doesn't make sense to me to carry out
Yes, a score of 0 disabl
I set up a spamd for testing about a week ago and would like to
fine-tune it now. Especially, I want to get rid of unnecessary
network tests. Currently, it uses dns bls as with the default config,
no checksum tests like razor and dcc.
Looking at the scores in 50_scores.cf and taking them of some
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 04:03:31PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> Matt Sergeant said:
>
> > There are a fair few so-called "right hand side" blacklists (taken from
> > the fact that they use the rhs of the email address), but they're
> > focussed on blocking based on what is given in the MAIL F
Matt Sergeant said:
> There are a fair few so-called "right hand side" blacklists (taken from
> the fact that they use the rhs of the email address), but they're
> focussed on blocking based on what is given in the MAIL FROM line. I'm
> sure they could extend themselves to work on domains used
Jon Gabrielson said:
> To my knowledge, spamassassin only uses blacklists on
> headers, i think that it should use it on urls in the body as well.
> EVERY piece of spam out there has contact info, or they can't
> sell their product, and that contact info is probably one of the hardest
> things t
Jon Gabrielson said the following on 04/12/02 14:52:
To my knowledge, spamassassin only uses blacklists on
headers, i think that it should use it on urls in the body as well.
EVERY piece of spam out there has contact info, or they can't
sell their product, and that contact info is probably one of
To my knowledge, spamassassin only uses blacklists on
headers, i think that it should use it on urls in the body as well.
EVERY piece of spam out there has contact info, or they can't
sell their product, and that contact info is probably one of the hardest
things to keep changing. If there were b
Are there any blacklists for spamfriendly urls?
Or is there a way to make spamassassin use the
existing blacklists to check out the ips of urls in
the body of the message. Most of my spam seems
to have bogus email addresses, but at the same
time have valid urls to either buy their product or to
20 matches
Mail list logo
