Any spammer worth his salt runs his message through SA and other
popular anti-spam tools as best he can. Most of SA is relatively static
and slow to respond to changes in message content. The problem comes in
a few areas like checks against Received headers (since the spammer may
be using tho
At Mon Dec 15 15:12:42 2003, Gary Smith wrote:
>
> Rubin,
>
> About a week ago a guy asked how to use SA to check the emails
> before he sent them for some mail list (or some private promo
> thing). I think that problem is that spammers themselves are
> starting to use product like SA to valida
Hi Raquel
> I'm new to SA, and so far am pretty confused. I've been to your
> (Jennifer) site, but don't know what to do with the rules that can
> be downloaded. Are they added verbatim to local.cf? I'm sorry for
> asking such an elementary question.
Yes, pick the sets you want to use. Put t
ey sit idle even though they
use SA and AV on the same box. I personally think the performance is acceptable for
the benefit that we see out of it.
Gary Smith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rubin Bennett
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 20
that we see out of it.
Gary Smith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rubin Bennett
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[SAtalk] Clever spam (first of many, I'm afraid...)
<
you want to make sure there are no problem, you can run:
spamassassin --lint.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Raquel Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:06 PM
Subject: Custom Rules (was Re: [SAtalk] Clever spam (fir
To tell the truth, this is the first spam that I actually recieved in my
Inbox in 3 days... between Bayes and BigEvil, I average only 1 out of
the 150+ spams I've been receiving per day that SA doesn't catch.
However, now I'm spoiled and I never want to see another spam message
(!), so I grumble w
The Backhair rules nailed it (10 points). I (duh) didn't even look
carefully at the HTML so I missed the really ugly tags in there.
Thanks!
Rubin
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 12:47, Rubin Bennett wrote:
> The spammers are getting smarter about Bayes... this one sneaked through
> SA 2.6, a well trained
On 14 Dec 2003, Rubin Bennett wrote:
> The spammers are getting smarter about Bayes... this one sneaked through
> SA 2.6, a well trained Bayes database, and the BigEvil rules with a
> score of 1.0 out of 5.
The body of the spam in question was more than 80% Bayes-
poison. It's not surprisi
but that is
a good thing ;)
Jennifer
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:spamassassin-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rubin Bennett
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 12:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Clever spam (first of m
At 12:47 PM 12/14/2003, Rubin Bennett wrote:
The spammers are getting smarter about Bayes... this one sneaked through
SA 2.6, a well trained Bayes database, and the BigEvil rules with a
score of 1.0 out of 5. What to do?
That's funny.. it hit BAYES_99 on mine...
Admittedly I had to do a kinda hal
The spammers are getting smarter about Bayes... this one sneaked through
SA 2.6, a well trained Bayes database, and the BigEvil rules with a
score of 1.0 out of 5. What to do? I'm sure that the sleazebags that
come up with these will send many of them now that they've figured out
it works. It's
12 matches
Mail list logo
