--On Monday, December 29, 2003 1:53 PM -0600 John Beamon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's gone, folks. He had no interest in getting real assistance, and he
> never came back.
I thought he replied with..
> I did not know spamassassin is home-brew. I thought I was dealing with
> one of dozens
He's gone, folks. He had no interest in getting real assistance, and he
never came back. The list has been most helpful in pointing out that
his own subscribers use SA voluntarily, train it themselves, and failed
to whitelist this web-app travesty of an "email" message. (I
particularly like
Hello!
If I may toss in my own two cents:
1) In general, responsible service providers make it a user OPTION
(opt-IN) to use spamassassin, and allow users to set their own 'comfort
level', to minimize what THEY consider to be false positives.
2) Spamassassin on its own does not block or delete
Seriously, There are some issues you need to work through. (Personal
Issues)
I switched to Spamassassin over a year ago, and have not looked back. It is
by far the most accurate I have ever seen. Not to mention customizable, and
very very powerful.
I really think you are from some company th
--On Monday, December 29, 2003 12:43 PM -0500 "Christopher X. Candreva"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As someone who owns his own ISP and frequently does support, I can tell
> you that rude messages go to the BOTTOM of the queue. Especially if they
> are from people who aren't paying customers.
(A
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, schafer wrote:
>
>
> > People have no insentive to help
> > rude people Stop being a jerk and you'll likely get more help.
>
> I did not know spamassassin is home-brew. I thought I was dealing with
> one of dozens of commercial outfits, and whom in my experience respond much
>
schafer wrote:
To Spamassassin:
My publication is double-opted in by 15,000 families with children with
autism. We are routinely victimized by incompetent software like
spamassassin because of false positives. This is just as intolerable as
> spam. It is worse than spam because it victimizes t
1. Chill ...
2. Your mail was flagged primarily because of it's HTML nature... There are
many online resources and guidelines that can help you write newsletters.
Google for them.
3. Your complains are ill-directed, becuase SA is not responsible for your
receivers CHOOSING to filter out y
gyAt Sun Dec 28 21:38:15 2003, cami wrote:
>
> > I do not know if this is the right place to complain as I could not find an
> > email address that offers feedback to the company. This arrogance stinks,
> > too. As if software developers don't need public feedback about their junky
> > products.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:07:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Christopher X. Candreva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] False positives
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, schafer wrote:
> To Spamassassin:
>
> My publicati
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:38:15 +0200 cami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do not know if this is the right place to complain as I could not find an
> > email address that offers feedback to the company. This arrogance stinks,
> > too. As if software developers don't need public feedback about the
I do not know if this is the right place to complain as I could not find an
email address that offers feedback to the company. This arrogance stinks,
too. As if software developers don't need public feedback about their junky
products.
Someone needs to put a shotgun to this morons head
and pull t
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:00:14 -0800 "schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To Spamassassin:
>
> My publication is double-opted in by 15,000 families with children with
> autism. We are routinely victimized by incompetent software like
> spamassassin because of false positives. This is just as in
At 11:00 PM 12/25/2003, you wrote:
My publication is double-opted in by 15,000 families with children with
autism. We are routinely victimized by incompetent software like
spamassassin because of false positives. This is just as intolerable as
spam. It is worse than spam because it victimizes th
> To Spamassassin:
Who is this 'SpamAsassin' you're writing to ?
> My publication is double-opted in by 15,000 families with children with
> autism. We are routinely victimized by incompetent software like
> spamassassin because of false positives.
Whoa, steady on there... not a good start to y
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 11:00:14PM -0800, schafer
carved this out of pure phosphors:
> To Spamassassin:
>
> My publication is double-opted in by 15,000 families with children with
> autism. We are routinely victimized by incompetent software like
> spamassassin because of false positives. This
That's a tough one Lenny.
There is no company that produces Spamassassin. It's a free open source
collaboration by individuals who contribute their time. It's not a
commercial product.
The Bayesian classifier in Spamassassin is trained by the user, and by
very high scoring spam. Spamassassin d
Hi,
> How many of you use sorbs.net without too much trouble? I'm just
Been testing with http.dnsbl.sorbs.net, socks.dnsbl.sorbs.net,
misc.dnsbl.sorbs.net, smtp.dnsbl.sorbs.net, web.dnsbl.sorbs.net and
dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net over the last few days and so far it is all good.
I was using only dnsbl
Justin Mason wrote:
> David Young said:
>
>
>>1. DOUBLE_CAPSWORD matches lines where there are no double capswords. This
>>is because it finds "URI:", which is text that spamassassin inserted itself
>>while processing the message.
>
>
> I don't know how long that rule's going to last, it gets
David Young said:
> 1. DOUBLE_CAPSWORD matches lines where there are no double capswords. This
> is because it finds "URI:", which is text that spamassassin inserted itself
> while processing the message.
I don't know how long that rule's going to last, it gets loads of FPs ;)
> 2. REALLY_UNSA
iences
University of Northern Iowa
- -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Douglas J Hunley
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Olivier Nicole
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] false positives since upgrading to 2.11 (1/7)
Olivier Nicole sp
Olivier Nicole spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into:
> The reports tells you that the mailing list is sent through a relay
> that is known to be used for spam.
>
> And this is confirmed by a second source, and the two sources maintain
> independant databases of relay used by spam.
>
>As you can see from the email attached, this mail got flagged simply because
>of 'received via relay' and 'confirmed spam source'
>I received the mail from a mailing list. I do *not* want to add the mailing
>list address to my whitelist as this mail would have been fine before
>upgrading to 2.
The problem is not SA -- It's that the relay for the mailing list is
currently in a blacklist. Either switch off blacklist checking for
OSIRUSOFT or whitelist the mailing list.
rOD.
--
"Fast! Fast! Faster! Bring the beef, you bastard,"
cries Paula Abdul, "and don't forget the pasta!"
-
+> ... would trigger false positives on
+> a@domain, b@domain, ..., k@domain
+> i.e., 11 (not 10) of the same domain would trigger this regardless of the
+> local parts. Well, the SUSPICIOUS_[CC_]RECIPS macros seemed good, so I
+> tweaked them ...
Tom> Coincidentally, I just sent fixes for the
At Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:16:56 -0800 John Beck wrote:
> ...
> would trigger false positives on
>
> a@domain, b@domain, ..., k@domain
>
> i.e., 11 (not 10) of the same domain would trigger this regardless of the
> local parts. Well, the SUSPICIOUS_[CC_]RECIPS macros seemed good, so I
> tweaked the
> > Conference announcements often contain the phrase "the
> > following format"
> > when requesting submissions, which matches the
> > THE_FOLLOWING_FORM rule,
> > which has a quite high score. Adding \W to the end of the
> > pattern prevents
> > this, and seems safe in general.
>
> \b would
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lipkis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Conference announcements often contain the phrase "the
> following format"
> when requesting submissions, which matches the
> THE_FOLLOWING_FORM rule,
> which has a quite high score. Adding \W to the end of the
> p
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 01:42, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to try and get the GA running here, though I'm not sure
how easy that will be since it seems to be targetted at mbox's, whereas I've
got Maildir's... But I'll figure it out.
mass-check should work fine with maildirs t
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> mike castleman said:
>
> > 1) Any tips for reducing this number? Most of the messages are not
> >especially private, so I can forward them or put them on the web
> >somewhere if people want. I don't wan
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 12:44:10AM -0500, mike castleman wrote:
> 2) And, for when false positives do occur, has anyone yet hacked up a
>mutt macro for running the message through spamassassin -d and
>moving the message to another folder?
So, there might be some prettier way, but here's w
mike castleman said:
> 1) Any tips for reducing this number? Most of the messages are not
>especially private, so I can forward them or put them on the web
>somewhere if people want. I don't want to bombard the list with my
>mailspool though.
Sure, zip them up and mail them to me, I
> I seem to be getting a (presumably) unusally high number of false
> positives. I'm up to 21 in the past week, on an input of 1540
> messages. (Damn, I am on too many mailing lists.) This is about 1.3%,
I think the list wisdom goes with whitelisting mailing lists. But
then you lose the ability
33 matches
Mail list logo
