At 06:47 AM 2/11/2003, Ole Holm Nielsen wrote:
It appears that Justin is right: MIMEDefang apparently uses its own
rewriting in the script /etc/mail/mimedefang-filter and seemingly
ignores the /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-mimedefang.cf config file
(or some of it ?).
MIMEDefang uses SpamAssassin to *ch
tir, 2003-02-11 kl. 15:44 skrev DEFFONTAINES Vincent:
> > Does anyone have a good recommendation on how to bounce
> > false-negatives to my bayesian classifier. I have an email
> > address set to parse it, but from what I read, forwarding
> > mail to it is not recommended.
>
> As an outlook (
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Justin Mason
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:34 AM
> To: DEFFONTAINES Vincent
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Bounce spam to bayes classifier with Outlook
>
>
>
> DEFFONTAINES Vin
Spamassassin 2.40 and 2.41 had serious score problems, that's why 2.43 had
a fresh run of the GA done.
Known issue, fixed in current versions.
At 08:54 PM 2/10/2003 -0500, Ed Benckert wrote:
I've SpamAssassin 2.41 installed, and a lot of the scores are negative,
when they seem like they should
I'm using SA 2.43 with guinevere. It receives a score
of 6.5 but is never flagged as spam even when I set my
threshold at 1. I don't see anything in it that
matches any whitelists. What could I be missing?
--
Received: from dms-mail04.netcenter.com
by
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Earnshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Bounce spam to bayes classifier with Outlook
>
>
> tir, 2003-02-11 kl. 15:44 skrev DEFFONTAINES Vincent:
>
> > > Does anyone ha
At 12:07 PM 2/11/03 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
A lot of SA deployments are of the "sitewide" variety, where a single
user_prefs gets applied uniformly to the email of a large number of users.
Sometimes one user in the network wants a given email sender whitelisted,
and others want them blacklis
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 05:33:47PM -0600, David Dellanave wrote:
> Has the use of use_razor, and use_dcc been depreceated? It's still listed in the
>docs as supported, but causes failure when lint'ing the configuration rules.
Which docs are you looking at? They're available in 2.50, but not in
And I'm just going to ignore that stupid "you and the local
council"-concept;
because if you want to compare companies enforcing their no-spam policies
by
blocking spamfinanced websites with elected officials digging holes in
public
streets then there's something seriously wrong with you.
Well,
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Rich Puhek wrote:
>
>
> Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 February 2003 18:51 CET Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >> When a domain is involved in spamming it's added to a list, and whenever
> >>a local user is trying to access that website he gets a "hardcoded
Wouldn't you be better off using a URI test rather than RAWBODY?
At 08:06 PM 2/10/2003 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Although I'll warn you that such a rule is also likely to fire off on a
lot of nonspam mail, as this is common in a LOT of URLs using scripting,
the rule you desire would be someth
- Original Message -
From: "Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] A new(?) way to fight spam, blocking their DNS
> Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>
> > Before I launch a website with this new and oh-so-great serv
tir, 2003-02-11 kl. 18:51 skrev Tony L. Svanstrom:
> Before I launch a website with this new and oh-so-great service I thought I'd
> check with you people first, just to see what it is that I'm missing with this
> oh-so-great idea (most likely that it either exists, or that someone tried it
> and
13 matches
Mail list logo
