You mean like having all outbound mail
learned as “HAM”?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Nichols, William
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003
5:30 PM
To: SA Mailing list
Subject: [SAtalk] Idea for
spamassassin
I attended a seminar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nichols, William writes:
> I attended a seminar yesterday about spam. One of the idea that was
> pitched as being in a product was training the inbound spam detecting on
> the patterns of outbound mail.
>
> They talked about their filters looking a
I attended a seminar
yesterday about spam. One of the idea that was pitched as being in a
product was training the inbound spam detecting on the patterns of outbound
mail.
They talked about
their filters looking at outbound mail, building patterns off it, then applying
those patterns to
All y'all should read bugzilla #47
C
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:12:32 -0800
> From: Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] idea: Rules about other rules
>
> Matthew Cline wrote:
>
> >I got th
Matthew Cline wrote:
>I got the idea of creating rules that would be triggered depending upon what
>other rules had already been triggered, so that you could combine different
>tests for greater accuracy. For instance, the rule US_DOLLARS is described
>as a "Nigerian scam key phrase", but it'
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 04:44:59PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> I got the idea of creating rules that would be triggered depending upon what
> other rules had already been triggered, so that you could combine different
> tests for greater accuracy. For instance, the rule US_DOLLARS is describe
I got the idea of creating rules that would be triggered depending upon what
other rules had already been triggered, so that you could combine different
tests for greater accuracy. For instance, the rule US_DOLLARS is described
as a "Nigerian scam key phrase", but it's separate from the NIGERI
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 08:38, Greg Ward wrote:
> [1] OK, OK, I thought of an idea: send a message to a special cooked
> address that you (the programmer) control; for SA, it might be
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". A script behind this address
> would record everything it can think of about thi
On 01 March 2002, Matthew Cline said:
> Even if this is a good idea (is it?), I don't know how to go about getting
> the user's email adress. If it's the user who's invoking SA, there might be
> some way to get the info from the environment, but I want to do it in a
> platform independant mann
I'm thinking of making patches to SA so that the auto-whitelist and identical
to-from rules ignore messages that are from the user. This is because both
rules interfere when I send myself messages to test SA, and there's some
spammers who forge spam as comming from the user him/herself, so it
As I was re-writing AWL just now, I noticed that in fact the way
checking is set up, it kind of has been planning to do something like
this for a while now. I'll think about it on the 2.2 timeline --
probably combining in some of the other ideas from the "spamassassin in
100% C" discussion as wel
Hi,
I don't know if this is already in the current version but maybe if a piece
of mail already matches a set threshhold (say 10 points) then the RBL and
razor checks are not performed.
The majority of spam I see getting caught are already caught because of the
regxeps and the additional time to
12 matches
Mail list logo
