> I modified chickenpox the other day so that it is scored using five meta
> rules, rather than by allocating 0.6 to each rule. This means that it
> can only add a maximum of 3.5 (by hitting 9 or more rules). Can't find
> the e-mail address of the original author, though, as I was going to
> send i
> But anyway, if one has good ideas how to integrate a result from a
previous test into a local test, I will be happy to hear about it.
In 3.0+ you can use full to find previous SA headers in the mail, and then
write rules against their presence. In some rare cases this could be useful
I suppose.
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, April 2, 2005, 2:43:14 AM, you wrote:
TS> Two hints: one ist that the name of the host which added the SPAM info
TS> to the header ist not mine but the hoster´s. The second is that I
TS> rewrite the subject and put the original mail in an attachment while
TS> the mails I
Hello Robert,
Friday, April 1, 2005, 6:05:16 AM, you wrote:
RB> Trying to cleanup any rules that might be outdated or a hinderance on our
RB> server, was wondering if I still needed the rules listed below:
RB> chickenpox.cf
RB> weeds2.cf
RB> random.cf
RB> 70_sare_unsub.cf
RB> 70_sare_uri.cf
Onl
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 05:09:40PM -0600, Chris wrote:
> I use RDJ to update rule sets, I only run it once a day. On the run for the
> 31st of March, RDJ reported:
>
> RulesDuJour Run Summary on cpollock.localdomain:
>
> The following rules had errors:
> Tim Jackson's (et al) bogus virus warnin
I use RDJ to update rule sets, I only run it once a day. On the run for the
31st of March, RDJ reported:
RulesDuJour Run Summary on cpollock.localdomain:
The following rules had errors:
Tim Jackson's (et al) bogus virus warnings was not retrieved because of: 403
from http://www.timj.co.uk/linu
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:35:29PM +0100, Gray, Richard wrote:
> I'd noticed a number of FPs on the chickenpox ruleset from .doc, .ppt
> files.
Ditto that, but with Fortran and C listings.
I modified chickenpox the other day so that it is scored using five meta
rules, rather than by allocating 0
hi all
increasingly over the last month the filter has letting spam through. some
days is ok - some like last night really bad - i got 60 spam messages. i
have spamd running - nothing has changed. it does get some of the spam
still but crap like this is getting through. and on top of it it
au
At 03:34 AM 4/2/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously my SA skips messages wich are already marked.
Can I switch this "skip" off?
SA itself doesn't "skip" messages that are already marked. Period.
You'll have to look at the configuration you're using to call SA, as the
only way to "skip" messag
Thanks!
I was wrong, sorry
My "spamd" was down, not checking anything.
But anyway, if one has good ideas how to integrate a result from a previous
test into a local test, I will be happy to hear about it.
thx & cheers
Thomas
__
Mit WEB.
Is it possible you have procmail set up to check for X-Spam-Status: Yes in
the incoming mail and bypass SA? Some people do this sort of thing. (But
you don't want to bypass on a status of No, of course.)
Loren
>
> > Obviously my SA skips messages wich are already marked.
>
> What makes you think this?
>
> So far as I know, SA strips (most) previous SA headers from
> the mail, then processes it. So you may or may not get the
> same results the second time.
>
> Loren
>
Two hints: one ist th
> Obviously my SA skips messages wich are already marked.
What makes you think this?
So far as I know, SA strips (most) previous SA headers from the mail, then
processes it. So you may or may not get the same results the second time.
Loren
> Is there a problem with emails sent from microsoft word via eamil (and
> thus with mime) and SA?
Probably not, but are you sure that MIME is getting used? When I send a
Word document through Exchange at work, Outlook decides to use inline hex
encoding in the body of the mail. This triggers any
Hi,
I am running SA 3. on Linux with Postfix and Cyrus (invoked as content_filter
via PIPE in Postfix using spamd/spamc). In general SA is workig fine.
Now I saw that some messages are already marked by my mailbox provider. For
some reasons I want my SA to work on these messages again (one is to
On Friday, April 1, 2005, 6:38:34 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
> On Friday 01 April 2005 10:52 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>> >I subscribe to the EFF Newsletter, it keeps repeatedly getting tagged as
>> > spam. I've put the 'from' address in my manual whitelist which has helped
>> > to lower
On Friday 01 April 2005 10:52 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> >I subscribe to the EFF Newsletter, it keeps repeatedly getting tagged as
> > spam. I've put the 'from' address in my manual whitelist which has helped
> > to lower the score to a tad above my spam threshold of 5.0. I've saved
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
