Yesterday I posted the wrong notation as I posted what my Terminal
client renders them as where as what it looks like thru cat -v is
From: "M-6M-sM-
does anybody recommend this?
On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:56 PM, BChasm wrote:
They almost look like chord notations...
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:31
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Gerald Turner wrote:
Not with header_checks (http://www.postfix.org/header_checks.5.html),
although there is a REPLACE action, it still couldn't operate on a
combination of headers.
Think two passes, one to check for the SA score and another to check for
the presence of th
On Tue, January 6, 2009 21:31, Bob McClure Jr wrote:
> Directly from our local.cf:
> = 8< snip -
> # We've (or at least the webmaster has) had a problem with spam
> # from aim.com users, coming from AOL servers. After much training,
> # they hit BAYES_99, but not enough o
LuKreme writes:
> On 6-Jan-2009, at 15:39, Gerald Turner wrote:
>> Unfortunately Postfix header_checks can only process one header at a
>> time, there's no way to compound conditions of multiple headers.
>> I've searched and can't seem to come up with any possibility of
>> configuring Postfix to
On 6-Jan-2009, at 15:39, Gerald Turner wrote:
Unfortunately Postfix header_checks can only process one header at a
time, there's no way to compound conditions of multiple headers. I've
searched and can't seem to come up with any possibility of configuring
Postfix to conditionally discard rather
Hello, I have been using SpamAssassin integrated with Postfix via spampd
SMTP proxy and I have the following header_checks file:
/^X-Spam-Level: \*{8,}/ DISCARD Spam score 8+
/^X-Spam-Level: \*{4,}/ REJECT Spam score 4+
There are cases where I'd rather DISCARD the low score mail (>= 4, < 8)
t
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that,
and
not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
This has been brought up on the list i
Craig wrote on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:07:38 -0600:
> X-Spam-Flag:YES
who added this? Maybe just act on it ...
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Rob Foehl wrote:
The last complaint filed with Habeas was answered with something like
"this customer appears to be following their business model"
Oh for pete's sake. If that's their criteria for acceptability then Habeas
is useless. After all, a spammer's business model
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Greg Troxel wrote:
In https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 I asked
why HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI still got a negative score, and after posting
in public did get a response from habeas. But my experience has been
that non-public complaints are ignored.
My
Craig wrote:
>>> Randy 1/6/2009 2:18 PM >>>
Craig wrote:
> Hello All-
>
> I have recently been getting MANY spam slipping through Spamassassin
> and I am looking for help on how to stop. I have used Spamassassin
> with Bayes successfully for many years now and once I train the system
> on n
>>> Randy 1/6/2009 2:18 PM >>>
Craig wrote:
> Hello All-
>
> I have recently been getting MANY spam slipping through Spamassassin
> and I am looking for help on how to stop. I have used Spamassassin
> with Bayes successfully for many years now and once I train the system
> on new spam, the
Scored a 6.2 on my system. Were those the full headers?
Content analysis details: (6.2 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
-1.4 ALL_TRUSTEDPassed through trusted hosts only via
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:07:38PM -0600, Craig wrote:
> Hello All-
>
> I have recently been getting MANY spam slipping through Spamassassin and I am
> looking for help on how to stop. I have used Spamassassin with Bayes
> successfully for many years now and once I train the system on new spam
Craig wrote:
Hello All-
I have recently been getting MANY spam slipping through Spamassassin
and I am looking for help on how to stop. I have used Spamassassin
with Bayes successfully for many years now and once I train the system
on new spam, the system does an excellent job of stopping. T
Jason Bertoch wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:mailli...@conactive.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:31 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: more habeas spam
There is also bug 5977 for BSP who still doesn't have a clear way to file a
complaint. I
> -Original Message-
> From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:mailli...@conactive.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:31 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: more habeas spam
>
There is also bug 5977 for BSP who still doesn't have a clear way to file a
complaint. I just receive
They almost look like chord notations...
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Robert Nicholson wrote on Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:25:00 -0600:
>
> > What is the convention being used here for encoding these mulitbyte
> > chars?
>
> I'd say none :-)
>
> Kai
>
> --
> Kai Schätzl, Berlin,
I find that "last journal sync atime" is 0 on my Bayes setups that use
MySQL. So, can I assume that there is no journal (well, there's no table
and file for it, anyway) and stuff is added directly to the database?
(which makes sense).
However, looking at my setups that still use dbm files I find
Greg Troxel wrote on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:51:57 -0500:
> In https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 I asked
I read that bug report now and followed the link to the ruleqa. I have a
slightly
different twist on that: should rules with such a low hit rate (whatever they
hit)
h
I have once again been spammed by a habeas-accredited sender. This time
it's also in senderbase, and thus got a whopping -8.6 from those two
combined. Perhaps one rule should be dropped - two rules controlled by
the same organization having additive scores doesn't seem right.
spample and SA out
Matt Kettler wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I wish to make a system-wide change for BAYES_95 and BAYES_99 to
score 1000.0 . 999.999% of those e-mail scoringthat high
are worthy of GTUBE status.
How can make that change systemwide?
in local.cf add:
score BAYES_95 1000.0
score BAYES_99 1000.0
The Doctor wrote:
> I wish to make a system-wide change for BAYES_95 and BAYES_99 to
> score 1000.0 . 999.999% of those e-mail scoringthat high
> are worthy of GTUBE status.
>
> How can make that change systemwide?
>
in local.cf add:
score BAYES_95 1000.0
score BAYES_99 1000.0
If you use sp
I wish to make a system-wide change for BAYES_95 and BAYES_99 to
score 1000.0 . 999.999% of those e-mail scoringthat high
are worthy of GTUBE status.
How can make that change systemwide?
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and c
Robert Nicholson wrote on Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:25:00 -0600:
> What is the convention being used here for encoding these mulitbyte
> chars?
I'd say none :-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
25 matches
Mail list logo
