[SAtalk] A way to view scoring in the message itself.

I've written some primative scripting with some help from the list that compiles a list of the Rules used and scores they received, and adds it into messages in a new header: X-Spama-Scores: This is for end users to be able to quickly see (on mail NOT tagged as spam) what scores were given fo

[SAtalk] Another milter

Hi! Just FYI: http://www.milter.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/09/196220&mode=thread I've been using it for a month now, and I think spamass is great! Cheers, - Peter Peter 'Luna' Runestig (fd. Altberg), Sweden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key

Re: [SAtalk] Re: Re: Re: C version

Sean Rima wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes outgrape: > > >>DdH> Oh, that's a limiting factor too. spamd takes up about 8MB on >>DdH> its own. It should share most (if not all) of that when it >>DdH> forks, but you don't want mor

Re: [SAtalk] Cyrillic encoding raises the spam level to 3.8

Daniel Quinlan wrote: > Michael Moncur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>I think the problem is simple: We have a SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS rule for 8-bit >>subjects. People can score it however they want. The unexpected thing is >>that every 8-bit subject also matches the SUBJ_ALL_CAPS rule, which it

Re: [SAtalk] Fw: [Razor-users] Announce: Vipul's Razor v2

This all looks really quite interesting. Though I wonder if the load of all the extra work now being down will kill them... (especially without the server being released/available). rODbegbie wrote: >> 2 Nilsimsa Signatures >> >>Nilsimsa is a _fuzzy signature_ algorithm based on statistical

[OT] Re: [SAtalk] Replying to list???

Jim Scott wrote: > How come this list does not have the reply to: set to the spamassassin list? > Every time I want to reply to the list I have to type in the email address. > Or as I see others do they use the reply to all feature and then the user > and the list gets a copy. The biggest reason

Re: [SAtalk] Cyrillic encoding raises the spam level to 3.8

Matt Sergeant writes: > Why don't we just branch SA for 2.30 now so that any HEAD checkins > don't go into this release unless they're urgent (in which case they > can be merged across) ? Good question! I'm in favor of branching. It lets developers make forward progress on HEAD and you can let

[SAtalk] Obfuscation escalation

We may need expanded rules to handle obfuscation. The following javascript decodes into another obfuscation javasscript. I didn't have time to persue it further (what the sender is counting on i suppose)... Subscribe for Daily Amateurs for FREE!!!