On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
>>
>> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
>> Better
>> [208.82.16.109 listed in
>
>
> I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago:
On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
-8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
Better
[208.82.16.109 listed in
I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago:
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI -1.0
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI
Hello everyone,
I'm running Spamassassin 3.1.7, with netqmail 1.05, ClamAv etc..
We've been subject to being joe-jobbed on one of our domains here at
work. We were lucky as we were able to switch off delivery to the
affected domain and effectively blocked the blowback by refusing E-Mail
from all
0) Michael, thanks
1) what are the various zero columns??
for example in 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
2) Is this good? not too good? bad? trouble?
On Mar 16, 2009, at 14:03, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Is there a document regarding the interpretation o
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 19:46 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> The wiki now has an email address to report Habeas-accredited spam:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Thanks Greg, I've reported it to them
--
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This
The wiki now has an email address to report Habeas-accredited spam:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
pgp8bfg8GvsBB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Received a mail in my inbox today that was definitely spam but scored as
below. After running it through spamassassin -r and -t and removing the
senders address from the autowhitelist I got it to score
X-spam-status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_2=1.234,
BAYES_50=1,DCC_CHECK_NEGA
SPF_HELO_PASS is NOT considered by whitelist_from_spf.
Daryl
What is the recommended way to get utf8 content of spam message
in cases when:
1) spam message misses charset declaration (common for TW spam)
2) TextCat Plugin detects language *and charset*
In case of one specific spam:
* TextCat detects zh.big5
* $status->get_content_preview()
return "bus
Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> Is there a document regarding the interpretation of
>
>
> > sa-learn --dump magic
> config: could not find site rules directory
>
> 0.000 03 0 non-token data: bayes db
> version
> 0.000 0 261451
On 16.03.09 13:23, Dennis German wrote:
> Is there a document regarding the interpretation of
>
>
> > sa-learn --dump magic
> config: could not find site rules directory
> 0.000 03 0 non-token data: bayes db
> version
> 0.000 0 261451 0 n
> > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:54:26 -0500
> > "McDonald, Dan" wrote:
> > > Rather than fiddle with TVD_PH_REC, I'd like to whitelist this sender
> > > using SPF. However, it appears that the envelope from address does
> > > not have an SPF policy; however, the helo record does match:
> > >
> > > If
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:03:47 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> You have 261,451 tokens that appeared in Œspam¹.
> You have 18,530 tokens that appeard in Œham¹
>
> You have 143,599 tokens (remember, some tokens could appear in both
> spam and ham)
The first two are actually the total number of sp
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 17:38 +, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:54:26 -0500
> "McDonald, Dan" wrote:
>
> >
> > Rather than fiddle with TVD_PH_REC, I'd like to whitelist this sender
> > using SPF. However, it appears that the envelope from address does
> > not have an SPF policy; however,
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:23:22 -0400
Dennis German wrote:
> Is there a document regarding the interpretation of
>
>
> > sa-learn --dump magic
The are pretty self-explanatory, if you know roughly how Bayes works.
The first three are the number of hams and spams learned and the total
number of
> Is there a document regarding the interpretation of
>
>
>> > sa-learn --dump magic
> config: could not find site rules directory
>
> 0.000 03 0 non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000 0 261451 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:54:26 -0500
"McDonald, Dan" wrote:
> I've got a false-positive against TVD_PH_REC. The text in part says:
> THIS REPORT MAY NOT REFLECT
> THE INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR ACCOUNT FOUND ON THE OFFICIAL RECORDS
> OF
>
> Rather than fiddle with TVD_PH_REC, I'd like to whitel
Is there a document regarding the interpretation of
> sa-learn --dump magic
config: could not find site rules directory
0.000 03 0 non-token data: bayes db
version
0.000 0 261451 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 018530
LuKreme wrote:
I don't remember what ?all means though, or how it differs from -all or
~all.
? means the record makes no claims about that source. ?all basically
says, "Mail might come from other places, or it might not, we aren't
sure." (In RFC terms, mail from us MAY be sent from other pl
I've got a false-positive against TVD_PH_REC. The text in part says:
THIS REPORT MAY NOT REFLECT
THE INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR ACCOUNT FOUND ON THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
Rather than fiddle with TVD_PH_REC, I'd like to whitelist this sender
using SPF. However, it appears that the envelope from a
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 10:05 -0500, Chris Barnes wrote:
>> >> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>> >>> The AWL score for this message is minimal (one can tell by
calculating
>>> >>> the stock rules' scores without it). Your problem here is
BAYES_00 and
>>> >>> RCVD_IN_D
21 matches
Mail list logo
