On 25/10/10 04:21, Dennis German wrote:
> Is there? should there be a rule for a header like:
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
There was a rule UNDISC_RECIPS in version 3.1, and it scored about 0.8
points. I don't know why it was removed; presumably it hit too much ham.
It used to go:
header UNDI
Is there? should there be a rule for a header like:
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
On 24/10/2010 9:27 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 18:03 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 24/10/2010 5:44 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
There are perfectly valid reasons to not have the actual recipient in
the To header. Ever sent a message with Bcc recipients? Ever received
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 18:03 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 5:44 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > There are perfectly valid reasons to not have the actual recipient in
> > the To header. Ever sent a message with Bcc recipients? Ever received a
> > post via a mailing list?
> >
> >
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 22:08 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:05 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> > I have settled on the following as it's more specific and less prone to
> > FPs (I can't think of any possibilities right now)
>
> > header __LOCAL_SUBJECT_SPAMMY Subje
On 24/10/2010 5:44 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:26 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Is there a quick way to compare 2 headers? I am seeing spam lately that
has an invalid e-mail address (one not hosted by us) set in the To:
header, but has the intended one in the Envelo
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:26 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> Is there a quick way to compare 2 headers? I am seeing spam lately that
> has an invalid e-mail address (one not hosted by us) set in the To:
> header, but has the intended one in the Envelope-To: header
>
> What I would like to do is
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:05 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> I have settled on the following as it's more specific and less prone to
> FPs (I can't think of any possibilities right now)
> header __LOCAL_SUBJECT_SPAMMY Subject =~ /^[0-9a-zA-Z,.+]{42,}$/
> meta LOCAL_SUBJECT_SPAMMY1 ((__LOCAL_SU
Hi,
Is there a quick way to compare 2 headers? I am seeing spam lately that
has an invalid e-mail address (one not hosted by us) set in the To:
header, but has the intended one in the Envelope-To: header
What I would like to do is take the Envelope-To and run a regex to check
if the To: head
On 23/10/2010 5:47 PM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:28:38 -0230
"Lawrence @ Rogers" wrote:
Hello all,
I noticed recently that our users are getting spam with the subject
similar to the following:
SehxpyNaturalRedheaddFayeReaganHasHerFirstLesbianExperienceWithBrunet
I got some of these
Hello
I'm trying to get some performance data on a customised ruleset using
the instructions at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ProfilingRulesWithDprof
and have two problems.
Firstly, I'm not actually getting any *_body_test or *_head_test data in
tmon.out. Instead, after running dprofpp, al
Hello:
Fol all messages, spamassassin takes 14++ seconds. Version: 3.3.1
(2010-03-16)
Debuging it, the times are:
Oct 24 14:03:20 email spamd[22477]: timing: total 14237 ms -
read_scoreonly_config: 4 (0.0%),
signal_user_changed: 6 (0.0%),
parse: 6 (0.0%),
extract_message_metadata: 80 (0.6%),
12 matches
Mail list logo
