On 06.12.09 11:39, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'm wondering if the language detection in TextCat can be improved.
> Here's the situation.
>
> It appears that TextCat was designed to be inclusive. You list the
> languages you want and it returns many possibilities so as not to
> trigger unwanted fal
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 11:49:25PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
> > I'm wondering if the language detection in TextCat can be improved.
> > Here's the situation.
> >
> > It appears that TextCat was designed to be inclusive. You list the
> > languages you want and it returns many
Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'm wondering if the language detection in TextCat can be improved.
> Here's the situation.
>
> It appears that TextCat was designed to be inclusive. You list the
> languages you want and it returns many possibilities so as not to
> trigger unwanted falsely.
>
> What I'm doing
Apache SpamAssassin 3.3.0-beta1 is now available for testing.
Downloads are available from:
http://people.apache.org/~wtogami/devel/
md5sum of archive files:
9b39e4e4fad09cfe9eff974f3d5a01ea Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-beta1.tar.bz2
530fb1bd28977271f30b348bc2b68db1 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-beta1.
On Dec 6, 2009, at 12:56 PM, "Marc Perkel" wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain
have spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a
freemail domain ?
I don't see the relationship that SPF has to freemail domains.
I'm wondering if the language detection in TextCat can be improved.
Here's the situation.
It appears that TextCat was designed to be inclusive. You list the
languages you want and it returns many possibilities so as not to
trigger unwanted falsely.
What I'm doing is extracting the language l
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 12:02 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 6-Dec-2009, at 02:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > A truly clean company that always uses opt-in and never spams has
> > nothing to fear from any anti-spam measure.
>
> Oh, that is CERTAINLY not true. It's not even true of just SpamAssass
On 6-Dec-2009, at 02:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> A truly clean company that always uses opt-in and never spams has
> nothing to fear from any anti-spam measure.
Oh, that is CERTAINLY not true. It's not even true of just SpamAssassin, but it
is completely disingenuous to claim that for ANY
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain have
spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a freemail
domain ?
i dont know if it require code changes to do this, but it make sense
for me atleast to make it, no ?
objection, flames
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 18:07 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
>
> FYI, abuse@ is specified in RFC2142, and need not be explicitly listed
> in the whois.
Thanks. I knew it was somewhere :-)
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Thusfar 18 reports to abuse@
> (despite the fact it's missing from the rdns whois)
FYI, abuse@ is specified in RFC2142, and need not be explicitly listed
in the whois.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
My figures for date the UK in the last 72 hours: 118 mails
*all* HABEAS accredited.
==
CHECKING DNSBL WHITE LISTS
==
80.75.69.201
NOT WHITELISTED:
sa-other.bondedsender.org, resl.emailreg.org, plus.bondedsender.org,
ips.whitelisted.org
WHITELISTED:
this rule won't work for long :-)
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::MIMEHeader
mimeheader AXB_CID_YARIGHT Content-ID =~ /^\<00\{DIGIT2\}/
score AXB_CID_YARIGHT 3.0
endif
score higher if you wish...
have a {ENJOY_VAR} Sunday!
On 06.12.09 10:53, Per Jessen wrote:
> Just for fun, I took a look at my logs for August, September, October
> and November and looked at the hits on HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI:
>
> Total hits = 1009.
>
> Of those, 45 would have been filtered out without HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI.
>
> 5 were most probab
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 07:14:31AM -0600, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 12:02 AM, "Benny Pedersen" wrote:
>
>>
>> i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain have
>> spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a freemail
>> domain ?
>
>
> Sorry, but
On Dec 6, 2009, at 12:02 AM, "Benny Pedersen" wrote:
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain
have spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a
freemail domain ?
Sorry, but SPF and DKIM simply don't have the saturation required for
that.
You cou
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i think it could be added to freemail.pm to test if sender domain have
spf or dkim and if no spf and or no dkim consider it as a freemail
domain ?
i dont know if it require code changes to do this, but it make sense
for me atleast to make it, no ?
objection, flames a
Just for fun, I took a look at my logs for August, September, October
and November and looked at the hits on HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI:
Total hits = 1009.
Of those, 45 would have been filtered out without HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI.
5 were most probably backscatter and got filtered out despite
HABEAS_AC
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 22:12 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
>
> frankly, nothing against them, yet if an organization really needs Return
> Path to get their email through to mailboxes without rejection, then doesn't
> the originator of the email have problems?
Of course they do! That's why ESP's exist -
LuKreme wrote:
> On 5-Dec-2009, at 13:58, Per Jessen wrote:
>> No legislation is any good without enforcement. Provided you have
>> both and the enforcement is "heavy handed", spam is not a problem.
>
> Show where spam is not a problem? Spammers are immune to the law
> because they are largely u
20 matches
Mail list logo
