I sometimes run rules_du_jour every few days, but typically
less than once a week. my conf has about 15 rulesets from
rulesemporium.com. Sometimes I'll run it several times in the
course of maintaining other scripts, but I've never had a problem.
Until today, it's been at least a few days since I
> I have not counted my spams but it seems that the "and somebody else" case
and the
> "not me" case both appear in high quantities.
Yep. I have rules for both of those cases, and they do moderately well.
However, how well they will do is very dependent on your personal situation.
I don't expect
Hi,
I am in a similar situation but would describe the problem slightly different:
although the mail goes to me (I must be somewhere in To, Cc or Bcc) it also
goes to unknown users.
I have not counted my spams but it seems that the "and somebody else" case and
the
"not me" case both appear in hi
> Is it possible to have a rule in blacklist_to for NOT [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
> If so, how.
Have to do it by hand, I think. Something like:
header __NONBLACK_TOToCc =~ /\b(?gooduser1|gooduser2)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
metaBLACKNESS!__NONBLACK_TO
scoreBLACKNESS100
Loren
At 03:21 PM 9/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
J, I think the "unfortunate"
One of my most productive rule 'hits' is on users that are in
blacklist_to. My mail is sucked down with fetchmail from my provider, so
I don't have the luxury (I don't think) of blocking mail for unknown
users at that level.
Is it possible to have a rule in blacklist_to for NOT [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Saturday 10 September 2005 08:50 pm, jdow wrote:
> From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> Does resolv.conf STILL show local host?
>
> And does your local host also support a caching server for the whole
> internet? That's the usual setup you need.
> {^_^}
Thanks to everyone for replying to me
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:02:16 -0400 (EDT)
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, James Lay wrote:
>
> > So I got a blatant virus attempt todaythe "Last Patch" one with
> > the bogus exe file. Is there a Spamcop type service where one can
> > submit virus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bart Schaefer writes:
> The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
> ...
The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
... and on top of that, they spammed our abuse address.
(Links to spammer site deleted.)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:45:40 +0500
From: Nadia Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: abuse
Subject: R
Just a followup:
Well, in the last few messages the rule
SARE_HTML_MANY_BR05 hasn't been fired anymore.
I then got one that fired SARE_OBFU_MEDS, but the last one I got did not fire any SARE rule or other stock rules.
However, the score keeps getting higher and higher due to all the network chec
11 matches
Mail list logo
