On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 09:48 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have had a couple of these sail into my my inbox untouched by SA with
> the exception of RDNS_NONE and Bayes. Score of -0.1!
>
> http://pastebin.com/m478c33ce
>
> Even after learning they still only score 3.6
>
> Anything
Alex wrote:
Hi,
- I'm happy to add any extensions as long as these are also free and
open source -- note that our 'target audience' includes big ISPs and
unfortunately for them things as Spamhaus's RBL aren't free;
Do the commercial vendors get to use publically-available DNSBLs like
zen?
Martijn Grooten wrote:
All,
a few months back, there was a discussion on this list about the
VBSpam comparative anti-spam tests[1], in which SpamAssassin performed
significantly worse than many commercial products. Now I run these
tests and I believe something was the matter with (the installati
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 09:48 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have had a couple of these sail into my my inbox untouched by SA with
> the exception of RDNS_NONE and Bayes. Score of -0.1!
>
> http://pastebin.com/m478c33ce
>
> Even after learning they still only score 3.6
>
> Anything
Hello all,
I have had a couple of these sail into my my inbox untouched by SA with
the exception of RDNS_NONE and Bayes. Score of -0.1!
http://pastebin.com/m478c33ce
Even after learning they still only score 3.6
Anything I can do?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed messag
