Vicki Brown wrote:
>> Excuse me... refuse? REFUSE? Refuse _point blank_??? What are you on ?!
Tony Earnshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fed up with people who expect everyone else to be clairvoyants. Think
> about it.
Tony, I think you should *stop* answering questions. You've been
extreme
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Eykamp
>
> It would be easy to implement. Can anyone see any downside
> to doing so?
Unless you really want to subject your internal users to SA checking, it
would be better to whitelist "trusted" users. There would then be no need
to turn off
> -Original Message-
> From: Vicki Brown
>
> By the way, do NOT implement the the solution as provided in
> the FAQ without being very specific with machine names or exact IP
> addresses. The spammer in my situation is spoofing the 192.168 net!
Thanks - good point. I should have bee
At 12:45 -0700 2003-07-28, Vicki Brown wrote:
>At 07:44 -0400 2003-07-28, Gilson, Larry wrote:
>>You might want to read the FAQ below.
>>It does not specifically answer your question
>knowing a bit more about the precise class of problem (i.e. spammer is
>pretending to be internal), it could be mad
At 07:44 -0400 2003-07-28, Gilson, Larry wrote:
>> Do I simply set auto_whitelist_factor 0? Does that turn off
>> AWL checking? Is there a "better" solution?
>
>You might want to read the FAQ below.
>It does not specifically answer your question
knowing a bit more about the precise class of problem
I ran into the same problem today, and came here looking for a solution. I
think it would be a good feature to allow users to disable AWL for certain
email addresses specified in the user_prefs file.
It would be easy to implement. Can anyone see any downside to doing so?
Chris Eykamp
At 10:4
Hey Vicki,
> Do I simply set auto_whitelist_factor 0? Does that turn off
> AWL checking? Is there a "better" solution?
You might want to read the FAQ below. It does not specifically answer your
question but may help.
http://spamassassin.taint.org/faq/index.cgi?req=show&file=faq01.013.htp
If yo
Vicki Brown wrote:
Please accept my apologies; I was not sufficiently clairvoyant to know what
information _you_ would think was important in _my_ message.
And you mine :-) Daniel reckoned I was being incredibly rude - i wasn't
trying to be, simply stating the obvious.
That said, I disagree with
Vicki Brown writes:
>The mail from which this set of headers was clipped should have had a spam
>score of 8.333; instead it has a score of -6.3. The only thing I see that can
>account for the lower score is AWL which is not a "rule" for which a simple
>"score" can be modified.
The AWL in this cas
Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>Fed up with people who expect everyone else to be clairvoyants.
Please accept my apologies; I was not sufficiently clairvoyant to know what
information _you_ would think was important in _my_ message.
That said, I disagree with the premise any of the info you asked for _is_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 12:36:20AM +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> >Mailserver - FreeBSD. Again, why does this matter? How could it possibly
> >matter?
>
> FreeBSD is not a mailserver.
I thought it was. Isn't a mail server a computer that serves mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 06:26:09PM +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> >Today two pieces of nasty x-rated spam came through the filters with
> >negative
> >scores because the spammer spoofed the From address to be _my_ address (the
> >address part only; the
Vicki Brown wrote:
Excuse me... refuse? REFUSE? Refuse _point blank_??? What are you on ?!
Fed up with people who expect everyone else to be clairvoyants. Think
about it.
Mailserver - FreeBSD. Again, why does this matter? How could it possibly
matter?
FreeBSD is not a mailserver.
MTA -sendmail
At 18:26 +0200 2003-07-27, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>Vicki Brown wrote:
>
>> Today two pieces of nasty x-rated spam came through the filters with
>>negative
>> scores because the spammer spoofed the From address to be _my_ address (the
>> address part only; the "real name" is not mine, they don't have
Vicki Brown wrote:
Today two pieces of nasty x-rated spam came through the filters with negative
scores because the spammer spoofed the From address to be _my_ address (the
address part only; the "real name" is not mine, they don't have that
information).
Solve this at your MTA level. Only you kno
15 matches
Mail list logo