On Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 22:25 Tristan Miller wrote:
> Anyone care to discuss? Has anyone else prepared some SA rulesets
> which implement any of the above checks?
Sounds very good, I love to sign e-mails, even when most receivers can't
check (is there some plugin for Outlook easy and free?).
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Montag, 3. April 2006 14:34 Lars Ringh wrote:
Now, since in each case the source data can come from two different
servers scanning the same kind of mails, should I try to merge the
bayes-data from servers home1 and home2 into the the same myqsl-db
and then merge the d
James,
Timeout is 600 seconds. If spamd doesn't have respond in that amount of
time them there is something else is wrong. I suppose that if all of
the spamd threads are clogged then you might find a waiting list but 600
seconds is a lifetime.
We had a misconfigured DNS once that slowed all th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a high volume mail server?
Yes it is rather high volume server, I don't have any estimates on # of
messages.
Something like this should do the trick (this is off the cuff, and just
a reference, you will have to modify for your exact setup).
master.cf
spam
James Keating wrote:
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I have been attempting to properly integrate SpamAssassin into
Postfix and have not found the solution that I am looking for.
Currently I have Spamassassin running as a daemon (spamd, version
3.1.0a-2) which uses MySQL to store Bayes, AWL, user prefer
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Perhaps you want somethin
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I have been attempting to properly integrate SpamAssassin into
Postfix and have not found the solution that I am looking for.
Currently I have Spamassassin running as a daemon (spamd, version
3.1.0a-2) which uses MySQL to store Bayes, AWL, user preferences and
stats. Postf
Matt Kettler wrote:
>Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Kettler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Perhaps you want something more like:
>
>header L_INCOMPETENT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>> header L_INCOMPETENT1ALL =~ /\\r\\n/
>>>
>>> header L_INCOMPETENT2ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
>>>
>>> header L_INCOMPETENT3ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?\n/
>> Ok, I tried #3 and it worked, as you said... But leaving the \s?
>
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> header L_INCOMPETENT1ALL =~ /\\r\\n/
>>
>> header L_INCOMPETENT2ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
>>
>> header L_INCOMPETENT3ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?\n/
>
> Ok, I tried #3 and it worked, as you said... But leaving the \s?
> didn't.
>
> I'm confused.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Perhaps you want something more like:
header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
>> Scratch my last email. $ doesn't work with
Matt Kettler wrote:
>Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Kettler wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>Perhaps you want something more like:
>>>
>>>header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
>>>
>>>
>
>Scratch my last email. $ doesn't work with ALL.
>
>I just tested 3 variants:
>
>header L
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 02:58:19PM -0700, Alex wrote:
> is there a way to check if my own email address somehow got onto a blacklist?
I don't know of any "email address" blacklists, other than people's personal
ones.
> an email I sent to myself comes up with
>
> 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed
hi,
is there a way to check if my own email address somehow got onto a blacklist?
an email I sent to myself comes up with
0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
[cf: 100]
3
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Perhaps you want something more like:
>>
>> header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
Scratch my last email. $ doesn't work with ALL.
I just tested 3 variants:
header L_INCOMPETENT1ALL =~ /\\r\\n/
header L_INCOMPETENT2
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Perhaps you want something more like:
>>
>> header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
>>
>> The $ forces end-of-line match, and the \s? allows any single whitespace to
>> be
>> inserted before the actual EOL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I know t
Matt Kettler wrote:
>Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
>>Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
>>>"text/html", it's "text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn". So the best
>>>that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
>>>
Greetings.
Has anyone considered the utility of having SpamAssassin score based partly
on the presence and validity of an OpenPGP signature, and on the trust of
the OpenPGP key?
Here are some ideas:
1) So far I've never received any spam which has been digitally signed; on
the other hand, I do r
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
>> The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
>> "text/html", it's "text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn". So the best
>> that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
>>
>>
>
> Ok, we'll here's a new rule:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
>
>
>>The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
>>"text/html", it's "text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn". So the best
>>that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Ok, we'll here's a
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
>"text/html", it's "text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn". So the best
>that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
>
>
Ok, we'll here's a new rule:
# incompetent spamware programmers...
he
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Doesn't RFC-822 require that the addresses be bracketed? Or is that
only when a comment string is present?
Only when there's a comment.
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
>>> Well, for a start, normally the X-Spam-* stuff gets inserted at the very
>>>
>>> end of the header block, but what I'm seeing instead is:
>>>
>>>
>> You're running 3.1 which puts them at the top of the headers. It was in the
>> 3.1.0 re
Philip Prindeville wrote:
things would be a little clearer if there was a consistent place that the
X-Spam-*: stuff got inserted at... It seems to move around.
IIRC this is the first time it's moved in the lifetime of the product,
but perhaps I've forgotten another occasion...
--
Kelson Vib
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> Well, for a start, normally the X-Spam-* stuff gets inserted at the very
>>
>>end of the header block, but what I'm seeing instead is:
>>
>>
>
>You're running 3.1 which puts them at the top of the headers. It was in the
>3.1.0 release announcement:
>
>- modify header
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:46:08PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> >What gives you that idea? The debug output clearly shows the received
> >headers
> >being parsed, the mime parser finds the message part (malformed content-type
> >and all), URIs are parsed out of the message, etc.
>
> Well,
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
What gives you that idea? The debug output clearly shows the received headers
being parsed, the mime parser finds the message part (malformed content-type
and all), URIs are parsed out of the message, etc.
Well, for a start, normally the X-Spam-
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Erm.. When do you see SA inserting X-Spam-* at the END of the header
> block???
SA doesn't (anymore.) MIMEDefang does, when using action_add_header, which
calls libmilter's smfi_addheader function. Recent versions of MIMEDefang have
action_insert_header, which can be use
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>>>
>> What gives you that idea? The debug output clearly shows the received
>> headers
>> being parsed, the mime parser finds the message part (malformed content-type
>> and all), URIs are parsed out of the message, etc.
>>
>>
>
> Well, for a start, normally the X
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
>
> ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
>
> so I ran:
>
> spamassassing -x -LD
>
> on it and saved the output into:
>
> ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.log
>
> what's odd is th
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:30:20PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
>>The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
>>
>>ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
>>
>>
>
>The first problem is that the headers are a bit malformed:
>
>MIME-
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:30:20PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
>
> ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
The first problem is that the headers are a bit malformed:
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html\r\n
Con
The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
so I ran:
spamassassing -x -LD
on it and saved the output into:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.log
what's odd is that it reads the first line (the Return-Path:) line a
Philip Prindeville wrote:
litre, and if I'm feeling really silly, aluminium (I hate that word).
Aluminium rocks! Especially aluminium foil and aluminium airplanes.
> Ah, that's it. According to file(1) the thing ended up in UTF-8. That's a
> side effect of my spreadsheet addiction, I was using OpenOffice Calc (on
> Linux) to edit the file. I found a program that will do the conversion to
> ASCII, so this should be pretty easy to fix once I get that built.
Aaron Grewell wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Sounds like you've got something other than spaces/tabs on that line (ie:
>> unprintable escape codes), or the file was created on a windows machine
>> with windows end-of-line format but is being read by a *nix machine
Matt Kettler wrote:
Of course you could train your spell checker to your companies local
mail words.. however, at that point you've implemented a low-quality
version of a bayes checker.
and he can just use a bayesian classifier to implement his "feature".
training is easy:
- ham = all words
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Sounds like you've got something other than spaces/tabs on that line (ie:
> unprintable escape codes), or the file was created on a windows machine
> with windows end-of-line format but is being read by a *nix machine.
Ah, that's it. Accor
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>
>
>
>>>3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
>>>(Translation: management material)
>>>
>>>
>>I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
>>someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they
Matt Kettler wrote:
>Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>
>
>>Hello
>>
>>One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
>>point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
>>
>>Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
>>spelling of the t
Aaron Grewell wrote:
>> Using include completely redundant at the local.cf level, as SA
>> automatically parses /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf. Rather than use
>> custom_scores.txt, just use custom_scores.cf and put it alongside local.cf.
>
> That's what I tried first, and got the same errors. So I
> Using include completely redundant at the local.cf level, as SA
> automatically parses /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf. Rather than use
> custom_scores.txt, just use custom_scores.cf and put it alongside local.cf.
That's what I tried first, and got the same errors. So I thought that maybe I
was su
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:59:13AM -0700, Aaron Grewell wrote:
> I removed my score changes from
> local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
> include custom_scores.txt in local.cf. Now SA will no longer lint my config
> properly, and fails on each score line t
Aaron Grewell wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm using SA 3.0.4, and I wanted to keep my score modifications in a separate
> file from the rest of my configuration. I removed my score changes from
> local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
> include custom_scores.txt in l
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Also, the rule probably wouldn't detect misuses of "then" in place of
"than".
May bee yore you sirs half goad spelling, oar naught. Orphan, there
justice likely two right pore lee. Eye no this is write cause
Thunderbird excepts it. They're are know read lines hear.
Aaron Grewell wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using SA 3.0.4, and I wanted to keep my score modifications in a separate
file from the rest of my configuration. I removed my score changes from
local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
include custom_scores.txt in local.cf.
Hi all,
I'm using SA 3.0.4, and I wanted to keep my score modifications in a separate
file from the rest of my configuration. I removed my score changes from
local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
include custom_scores.txt in local.cf. Now SA will no longer
On Wed, April 5, 2006 10:53 am, Jim Zimmerman wrote:
> UNSUBSCRIBE
As I'm sure this isn't the first list you'll want to unsubscribe from, nor
will it be the last, there's a general rule for lists:
You don't send UNSUBSCRIBE commands to the 'list'. There's generally a
specific address to send them
UNSUBSCRIBE
-Original Message-
From: Philip Prindeville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:52 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Filtering based on the recipients
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
[It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
Matt Kettler wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Kettler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>[It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
>>>body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>onsdag 05 april 2006 06:43 skrev Philip Prindeville:
>
>
>>I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
>>
>>How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
>>running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMA
Steve Lindemann wrote:
> A good choice... and another way to accomplish the task (assuming
> sendmail, I'm not sure about other MTAs):
>
> /etc/mail/access
>
>bogus_user ERROR "550 Go away - you are not welcome here"
> or
>bogus_userREJECT (acknowledge & reject message)
> or
Also, the rule probably wouldn't detect misuses of "then" in place of
"than". ;-)
(Nothing personal, lots of people, make that mistake, as well as
"insure"/"ensure", "effect"/"affect" and many similar ones.)
Seriously though, I get the feeling that a well-trained bayes database, which
to a bi
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>> 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
>> checker.
>>
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
> technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
> local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule.
> Rule No.1: If a rule is likely to hit more
> ham then spam due to certain circumstances,
> it is not a rule to consider implementing unless
> you know you'll never meet the circumstances -
> but then it's up to YOU to modify your local.cf
> and implement the rule ;)
You say to-may-to, I say to-m
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Philip Prindeville wrote:
How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
then I know they're bogus...
And can probably block it, even if some of
"Gustafson, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 05.04.2006 17:11:10:
> > 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
> > checker.
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
> technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
> local
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > You have now. :) From mimedefang.pl:
> > >
> > > if ($AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin and
> > > ($#Recipients >= 0)) {
> > > push(@sahdrs, "Apparently-To: " .
> > > join(", ", @Recipie
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
> running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> then I know they're bogus...
>
> And can probably block it, even if some of the recipie
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
(Translation: management material)
I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they got a bounce message
back telling them to turn on the s
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> You have now. :) From mimedefang.pl:
>>
>> if ($AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin and
>> ($#Recipients >= 0)) {
>> push(@sahdrs, "Apparently-To: " .
>> join(", ", @Recipients) . "\n");
>> }
>
> Hmmm... Is this he
> And how would you deal with messages in other languages? Over here 99%
> of messages in English are spam! AFAIK there's no language indicator
in
> email messages.
I wouldn't deal with messages in other languages. My clients are all
english speaking Americans, and we already block all foreign
> 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
> checker.
I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule.
> 2) FPs on email sent by folks of the
Paolo Cravero as2594 writes:
>
> Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>
> > Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
> > spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
> > exceeds, for example, 50%, then we can add a few points to the SPAM
> > score? I'm not su
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
> Hello
>
> One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
> point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
>
> Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
> spelling of the text parts of the message, and
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
exceeds, for example, 50%, then we can add a few points to the SPAM
score? I'm not sure how to begin coding this, but I think it should
Hello
One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
exceeds, for e
Rick Macdougall wrote:
David Landgren wrote:
List,
if you have a significant number of French-language users, I'd love to
have some feedback on a ruleset to catch the endless virus hoax
messages. Things like "the worst ever according to CNN", "only
discovered yesterday, no rememdy, according
>...
>Loren Wilton wrote:
>>> 3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
>>>
>>> ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
>>>
>>> AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
>>>
>>> So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
>>>
On Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 15:48 Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Strange, I'm the Network admin for an ISP in Montreal, Quebec and
> I've never ever seen anything like that (about 30k email accounts,
> 90% French).
So you're either
1) happy
and
2) not subscribed to the wonderful spam lists
Post some of
David Landgren wrote:
List,
if you have a significant number of French-language users, I'd love to
have some feedback on a ruleset to catch the endless virus hoax
messages. Things like "the worst ever according to CNN", "only
discovered yesterday, no rememdy, according to McAfee", "burns the
List,
if you have a significant number of French-language users, I'd love to
have some feedback on a ruleset to catch the endless virus hoax
messages. Things like "the worst ever according to CNN", "only
discovered yesterday, no rememdy, according to McAfee", "burns the
sector zero of your ha
Andy Jezierski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 04.04.2006 23:13:08:
> There have been numerous threads on how to have end users drop
> misclassified mail to spam/ham folders in Exchange, but I don't recall
> seeing any mention of a way of doing this with Notes.
>
> Is anyone doing this with Not
onsdag 05 april 2006 15:02 skrev Bowie Bailey:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You have now. :) From mimedefang.pl:
> >
> > if ($AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin and
> > ($#Recipients >= 0)) {
> > push(@sahdrs, "Apparently-To: " .
> > join(", ", @Recipients) . "\n");
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Matt Kettler wrote:
> > > Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to
> > > calling SpamAssassin.
> > >
> > Yes, but I've never seen an "Apparently-To" implementation that
> > listed all the rec
Matt Kettler wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to
>> calling SpamAssassin.
>>
> Yes, but I've never seen an "Apparently-To" implementation that listed
> all the recipients of a multi-recipient message...
You h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> > [It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and body,
> > so this information isn't accessible to SA.
>
> Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to calling
> SpamAssassin. MIMEDefang has an $AddApparently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> [It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
>> body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
>>
>
> Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to calling
> SpamAssassin. MIMEDefang has an $AddA
Matt Kettler wrote:
> [It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
> body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to calling
SpamAssassin. MIMEDefang has an $AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin variable you
can se
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
>
> How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
> running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> then I know they're bogus...
>
> And can
> I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
> How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
> running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
> PROTECTED] then I know they're bogus...
you accept them in your mta ?
> And can
Hello Andy,
we've been already in contact the last
year. But after I've sent you a test version of my DomSpamC/DSCLearner,
I haven't heart anything from you.
Pherhaps you'll take a fresh look at
my newest DSCLearner. It allows user-based and site-wide bayesian training.
It runs as Lotus Domino t
Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Erm.. Loren.. While that may be true of binary fractions, nobody uses
>> binary fractions.
>>
>> In IEEE floating point format (single precision or otherwise), 0.001 has
>> an exact binary representation.
>>
>> Very few things in this world use binary fractions. Standard floa
Don't do this from spamassassin, reject messages sent to nonexistent
users from your MTA (postfix, exim4, whatever you use). This will also
lower the backscatter mail volume from your system (sending bounces to
forged sender addresses).
Gabor Sipos
> I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, b
Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Erm.. Loren.. While that may be true of binary fractions, nobody uses
>> binary fractions.
>>
>> In IEEE floating point format (single precision or otherwise), 0.001 has
>> an exact binary representation.
>>
>> Very few things in this world use binary fractions. Standard floa
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 00:25 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
[...]
> AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
>
> So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
Long answer: Only as long that you only add and subtract. But
additions/subtractions are inhe
> Erm.. Loren.. While that may be true of binary fractions, nobody uses
> binary fractions.
>
> In IEEE floating point format (single precision or otherwise), 0.001 has
> an exact binary representation.
>
> Very few things in this world use binary fractions. Standard floating
> point numbers on com
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>>> 3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
>>>
>>> ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
>>>
>>> AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
>>>
>>> So, no.. you would not have any rounding issue
Loren Wilton wrote:
>> 3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
>>
>> ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
>>
>> AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
>>
>> So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
>>
>
> Yes y
Andy Jezierski wrote:
There have been numerous threads on how to have end users drop
misclassified mail to spam/ham folders in Exchange, but I don't recall
seeing any mention of a way of doing this with Notes.
Although we don't let users train Bayes, Lotus client and server from
version 5 an
Tony Finch wrote:
The following headers come from a legitimate message - I have obscured the
sender's name, but that's all. The "SlipStream SP Server" seems to have
appended the client username and IP address to the message-ID, causing the
FP. See also:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sp
onsdag 05 april 2006 06:43 skrev Philip Prindeville:
> I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
>
> How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
> running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> then I know t
> 3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
>
> ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
>
> AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
>
> So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
Yes you would, or at least could. .001 is
94 matches
Mail list logo
