On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Ned Slider wrote:
header NSL_RCVD_HELO_USER Received =~ /helo[= ]user\)/i
describeNSL_RCVD_HELO_USER Received from HELO User
Might want to combine into a meta rule with existing NSL_RCVD_FROM_USER rule:
header NSL_RCVD_FROM_USER
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Anyone else have effective local rules? Please let me know and I'll put them
into the nightly masscheck for testing.
I need to put in my postcard rules...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.o
sent from compromised webmail accounts. Hit rate is not
great, but the FP count is near zero.
Regards,
Ned
Thanks Ned,
Both of the above rules are already in
trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_misc_testing.cf.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110114-r1058896-n/NSL_RCVD_FROM_USER/detail
0.5%
On 14/01/11 21:04, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Anyone else have effective local rules? Please let me know and I'll put
them into the nightly masscheck for testing.
Warren
header NSL_RCVD_HELO_USER Received =~ /helo[= ]user\)/i
describeNSL_RCVD_HELO_USER Recei
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:23 AM, mouss wrote:
> sigh. if you can't understand what "privacy" means, then you are part of
> the problem.
Ham corpus "may" conflict with privacy, but it does not necessarily
have to. An example is the old ~2005 ham corpus. People can decide
which emails to share, and
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:04:49 -1000, "Warren Togami Jr."
wrote:
> Anyone else have effective local rules? Please let me know and I'll put
> them into the nightly masscheck for testing.
meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
On 1/14/2011 2:28 AM, James Lay wrote:
Hey All!
Been a while since I did a full blown install of SpamAssassin, and as
I'm looking at my old setup, I see a fair amount of changes. I have the
SARE rules as well as RulesDuJour running, but noticed that on a fresh
install of SA, after doing an sa-up
On 1/14/11 6:38 AM, "Jason Bertoch" wrote:
>On 2011/01/14 7:28 AM, James Lay wrote:
>> Hey All!
>>
>> Been a while since I did a full blown install of SpamAssassin, and as
>> I'm looking at my old setup, I see a fair amount of changes. I have the
>> SARE rules as well as RulesDuJour running, but
> On 01/14/2011 01:28 PM, James Lay wrote:
>> Been a while since I did a full blown install of SpamAssassin, and as
>> I'm looking at my old setup, I see a fair amount of changes. I have
>> the SARE rules as well as RulesDuJour running, but noticed that on a
>> fresh install of SA, after doing an
On 2011/01/14 7:28 AM, James Lay wrote:
Hey All!
Been a while since I did a full blown install of SpamAssassin, and as
I'm looking at my old setup, I see a fair amount of changes. I have the
SARE rules as well as RulesDuJour running, but noticed that on a fresh
install of SA, after doing an sa-u
This is getting asked about every week :-) Short answer: no, not relevant
anymore, don't use.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On 01/14/2011 01:28 PM, James Lay wrote:
Hey All!
Been a while since I did a full blown install of SpamAssassin, and as
I'm looking at my old setup, I see a fair amount of changes. I have
the SARE rules as well as RulesDuJour running, but noticed that on a
fresh install of SA, after doing an sa
Hey All!
Been a while since I did a full blown install of SpamAssassin, and as I'm
looking at my old setup, I see a fair amount of changes. I have the SARE
rules as well as RulesDuJour running, but noticed that on a fresh install of
SA, after doing an sa-update, there are very few rules files (th
On 13/01/2011 21:06, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
Thank you all for your quick responses and suggestions. I went ahead and
adjusted the threshold from 3.00 to 5.00. I'll continue to monitor how the
server is reacting to spam as we move forward.
Thanks again for your help.
-Brendan
The method I use, a
14 matches
Mail list logo
