Alex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thought I would share what my top ten rules are for the past few days,
> and see if they compare with the consensus on the list:
I think you ought to count the points scored, not just the rules hit.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Hi all,
Thought I would share what my top ten rules are for the past few days,
and see if they compare with the consensus on the list:
BAYES_99 76.5%
HTML_MESSAGE 76.0%
RAZOR2_CHECK 72.8%
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 69.7
Hi,
>> Yes, big help. That did it, using the default scores. This was
>> written a number of years ago. Do you think it's still safe to use
>> the default scores?
>
> NO!
>
> I put some of the (previously) better-performing chickenpox rules into
> my sandbox a while ago to investigate this. It's
Works like a charm!
Bug raised (6415).
Thanks very much sir!
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Mark Martinec [mailto:mark.martinec...@ijs.si]
Sent: April 18, 2010 5:48 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Open of auto-whitelist file failed: Insecure dependency in
eval...
On
Alex wrote:
> Why is s.twimg.com blacklisted on SEM_URI and SEM_URIRED?
There was a rather painful flood of crap hitting our servers using
images hosted at twimg.com. Looks like they were posting the images as
profile pics and then linking directly to it on twitter's dime. This
domain has drop
On Sunday April 18 2010 21:33:20 Chris Welch wrote:
> I just upgraded a CentOS 5.4 system to Spamassassin 3.3.1. The upgrade was
> done by a CPAN install with Perl.
>
> The previous version (3.2.5) had worked flawlessly for a couple of years.
> However, the upgraded version reports an error in t
thanks!
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Alex wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:58:54 -0400:
> I did, and it says because it
> has been found to send spam, but that doesn't make sense.
Ah, you are the owner of that server and scrutenized all mail going thru
it? No?
AFAIR, Spamcop also shows you the mail that hit the trap. There is usually
Chris Welch wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:33:20 -0400:
> I just upgraded a CentOS 5.4 system to Spamassassin 3.3.1. The upgrade was
> done by a CPAN install with Perl.
which you should not do. Unless there is *no* other chance a Perl or modules
or Perl programs on an rpm-based system should be u
Hi,
>> I'm trying to understand why spamcop and SEM both think this email
>> from twitter is spam:
>
> Did you already go to the respective service and search for the IP number
> or domain (whatever they are absed on)? That should explain the why.
Yes, I should have made that more clear. I did, a
I just upgraded a CentOS 5.4 system to Spamassassin 3.3.1. The upgrade was
done by a CPAN install with Perl.
The previous version (3.2.5) had worked flawlessly for a couple of years.
However, the upgraded version reports an error in the spamd.log file:
Sun Apr 18 15:21:10 2010 [7966] warn: auto-
Alex wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:12:12 -0400:
> I'm trying to understand why spamcop and SEM both think this email
> from twitter is spam:
Did you already go to the respective service and search for the IP number
or domain (whatever they are absed on)? That should explain the why.
Kai
--
Get
Hi,
I'm trying to understand why spamcop and SEM both think this email
from twitter is spam:
http://pastebin.com/8SpRtR7L
Is this somehow forged and I just don't understand it, or is there
something else causing it to be triggered that I'm not seeing?
Why is s.twimg.com blacklisted on SEM_URI a
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/ says "As a result of a security
breach on 4th April 2010, the Apache Infrastructure Team recommends that
all SpamAssassin Bugzilla users change their passwords as a
precautionary measure. Please see the Infrastructure Blog for further
information."
On søn 18 apr 2010 00:55:12 CEST, John Hardin wrote
Checked into my sandbox as __SPF_FULL_PASS
It should appear on ruleqa in a couple of days.
super, i have more rule but will wait with them
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
15 matches
Mail list logo
