On ons 29 dec 2010 07:11:54 CET, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote
then a new rule would be pushed out via updates, yet not disturb an
existing setup.
i could very well be solved with remove ALL dnsbl in default sa-update
channel, and then make seperate chanel pr bl/wl
the api is already tested, but
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> All very good points. I guess I'm a bit frustrated because njabl is
> clearly not performing anymore, I noticed that a few years back, and
> yet it's still in SA but better BL's are not. As you (and I) both
> illustrated, certain things
On 12/28/2010 9:05 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Whoa. Ted please calm down. I think you read too much into this and
are seriously overreacting. I didn't propose immediately replacing
NJABL with like mailspike. I was only pointing out
that NJABL was performing very poorly, to such an extent t
On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 19:05 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> Whoa. Ted please calm down. I think you read too much into this and
> are seriously overreacting. I didn't propose immediately replacing
> NJABL with like mailspike. I was only pointing out
> that NJABL was performing very poorly,
Whoa. Ted please calm down. I think you read too much into this and are
seriously overreacting. I didn't propose immediately replacing NJABL with
like mailspike. I was only pointing out that NJABL was
performing very poorly, to such an extent that you're better off removing it
because it is ne
On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 22:44:09 +, João Gouveia wrote:
> Again, a bit harsh, but I see your point. We shall improve the web
> site whenever possible. As everything free (and we would like to keep
> it that way), it's kind of subject to time+effort constraints, and
> typically we prefer to mak
On 12/28/2010 2:44 PM, João Gouveia wrote:
- "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
On 12/28/2010 12:14 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Folks here are missing the point, that NJABL is catching not much
of
anything, like less than 1% of spam, and with a relatively high FP
ratio. I don't understand thi
- "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
> On 12/28/2010 12:14 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> > Folks here are missing the point, that NJABL is catching not much
> of
> > anything, like less than 1% of spam, and with a relatively high FP
> > ratio. I don't understand this desire to keep such a poor
> pe
On 12/28/2010 12:14 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Folks here are missing the point, that NJABL is catching not much of
anything, like less than 1% of spam, and with a relatively high FP
ratio. I don't understand this desire to keep such a poor performing
rule, especially when it costs a network q
Yeah sorry, I was confused by the subject line which mislead me to think
the point was about whether or not NJABL is still a functioning DNSBL.
Silly me.
--
Neil Schwartzman
Senior Director, Security Strategy
Email Intelligence Group
Return Path Inc.
+1 (303) 999-3217
AIM: returnpathcanuk
http:/
Folks here are missing the point, that NJABL is catching not much of
anything, like less than 1% of spam, and with a relatively high FP ratio. I
don't understand this desire to keep such a poor performing rule, especially
when it costs a network query.
Warren
That would not be correct. NJABL is alive and kicking, and not all of
their zones are replicated at Spamhaus. The XBL provides more than 'just'
CBL + NJABL, BTW.
--
Neil Schwartzman
Senior Director, Security Strategy
Email Intelligence Group
Return Path Inc.
+1 (303) 999-3217
AIM: returnpathcanuk
> > I'm just trying to figure out how big a problem this is :)
>
> It's not a problem for you a an end user, just warnings. Please disregard.
>
> > Naturally I would like to have an error and warning free lint :)
>
> Some of the scores for rules above should have been wrapped with
> ifplugin/end
> Alright thanks for clearing that up, do you think the other warnings
> about missing rules is also just sloppiness?
The DKIMDOMAIN_IN_DWL*, ACCESSDB and SHORTCIRCUIT are fixed
now, and SUBJ_RE_NUM removed:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6499
trunk (and 3.3, assuming
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, Jonas wrote:
From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Jonas wrote:
I looks like jhardin disabled the old rules at some point early 2010,
and made some newer ones with _NEW appended, but the file 50_scores.cf
(downloaded from updates.spamassassin.
Jonas,
> config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
> SANE_7429530a7398f43f1f1b795f9420714e
> config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
> SANE_91eb43f705d25c804374a746d7519660
> config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
> SANE_04e8bf28eb445199a7f11b943c44d209
> config: warni
> -Original Message-
> From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
> Sent: 27. december 2010 20:43
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Issue with rules in 3.3.1
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Jonas wrote:
>
> > I looks like jhardin disabled the old rules at some point early 201
17 matches
Mail list logo
