--On Friday, November 22, 2002 4:36 PM -0500 Vivek Khera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is about as useful as reporting virii missed by several
> months old antivirus software... SA has advanced significantly since
> 2.31, and spam has evolved since then too.
I ran his corpus through my
Agreed, using 2.31 isn't a particularly useful baseline. But the data may
be somewhat useful.
It's not hard to run a mass check against this with 2.43 and screen out the
ones that are still FN.
I'll try doing that when I have a chance, and try to post some statistics,
and maybe make the result
> "MB" == Mathew Binkley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MB> Hi everyone. I've been putting Spamassassin 2.31-16 through it's paces
MB> using the never-ending source of spam that is Hotmail. I have been
[ ... ]
MB> I hope it's of use to the SA guys.
I think it is about as useful as reporting
Hi everyone. I've been putting Spamassassin 2.31-16 through it's paces
using the never-ending source of spam that is Hotmail. I have been
using Gotmail to fetch my email and pipe it through SA. I have been
using the RedHat 8.0 defaults (spamassassin score > 5 = spam).
In four weeks I have re
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:33:23PM -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results
> SPAM: 7.6 hits, 5 required;
> SPAM: * -0.5 -- BODY: Contains 'Dear Somebody'
> SPAM: * 2.5 -- BODY: Por Apenas muita grana
> SPAM: * 2.7 -- BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
> SPA
Here is a false negative i received today.
I already reported it to razor.
Is this the best place to report it for spamassassin?
Jon.
--- Begin Message ---
Dear Sirs/Madam
We found your company on www.directfreight.com's website and believe that
our Hong Kong Fax Line service will assist your c
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:20PM -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:
> Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Anyways, This would probably be a good
> blacklist address to add because I can't
> imagine it ever being a valid reply address.
> opt-out maybe, but not opt-in
FYI: In 2.50, there's a rule that ca
I have started to receive alot of spams with
Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I assume it is a way to attempt to legally say:
"when they replied and asked to be removed we
thought they were opting in"
Anyways, This would probably be a good
blacklist address to add because I can't
imagine it ever
dman said:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:50:15PM +1100, Justin Mason wrote:
> | dman said:
> |
> | > A spam got through, but this addition catches it :
> | >
> | > header INVALID_DATE_STAR Date =~ /\*+/
> | > describeINVALID_DATE_STAR Date: contains '*'
> | > score INVALID_DAT
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:50:15PM +1100, Justin Mason wrote:
| dman said:
|
| > A spam got through, but this addition catches it :
| >
| > header INVALID_DATE_STAR Date =~ /\*+/
| > describeINVALID_DATE_STAR Date: contains '*'
| > score INVALID_DATE_STAR 3.2
| >
|
| could
dman said:
> A spam got through, but this addition catches it :
>
> header INVALID_DATE_STAR Date =~ /\*+/
> describeINVALID_DATE_STAR Date: contains '*'
> score INVALID_DATE_STAR 3.2
>
could you forward the spam on? That's a wierd one.
--j.
___
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 01:13:05PM -0500, dman wrote:
> bodyDEAR_SIR_MADAM_b/Dear Sir\/Madam:/
> describeDEAR_SIR_MADAM_bMessage contains "Dear Sir/Madam:"
> score DEAR_SIR_MADAM_b2.0
Mmm, it would catch many of my "non-spam" mails... So ok, but
with a score of 0.5 m
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 01:13:05PM -0500, dman wrote:
| While we're in the business of tagging junk mail, this helps too,
| sometimes. (obviously it doesn't work with mime or html messages)
|
| bodyBLANK_MESSAGE /^(\w)*$/
| describeBLANK_MESSAGE The message has no contents.
| s
A spam got through, but this addition catches it :
bodyDEAR_SIR_MADAM_b/Dear Sir\/Madam:/
describeDEAR_SIR_MADAM_bMessage contains "Dear Sir/Madam:"
score DEAR_SIR_MADAM_b2.0
header DEAR_SIR_MADAM_tTo =~ /Dear Sir\/Madam/
describeDEAR_SIR_MADAM_tT
14 matches
Mail list logo
