On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:24:47 +0300
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> 28.10.2011 4:38, Ricardo Ardila Vetrovec kirjoitti:
> > on the spamassassin server i create a mail box so users can
> > redirect the emails they consider spam
> ...
> > question is: is this method works? with the redirection of the mail
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 23:05 +0200, Loic Condette wrote:
> > > [DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.34, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1=0.001, HELO_NO_DOMAIN=0.001,
> > > RDNS_NONE=0.793, TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS=0.001]
> > and most rules do have textual
> > descriptions available that can be displayed in the message header given
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:10:53 +0200 (CEST)
Loic Condette wrote:
> Well, honestly, please forgive me but I'm not (yet) the kind to be
> able to decode your sig.
> Does that mean that i do not have the right to use SA?
>
> You probably should hunt cellphone users for using their cellphone
> without
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 17:29 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 10/28, Loic Condette wrote:
> > > and most rules do have textual
> > > descriptions available that can be displayed in the message header given
> > > the proper config options.
> >
> > Do you (or anyone else) know what the prope
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Loic Condette wrote:
Additionally,
FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1 description is rather unclear, to say the least.
Heh. That one probably duplicates HELO_NO_DOMAIN. "FDQN" is net-speak for
"Fully-Qualified Domain Name".
Indeed, it's just that the rule's description on SA looks like
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 23:10 +0200, Loic Condette wrote:
> > > I just received a spam which match the following rules:
> >
> > Are we really talking about a single spam message that slipped past SA?
>
> Yes, indeed. May I ask why?
Mostly just curious and making sure we're on the same page.
Howeve
On 10/28, Loic Condette wrote:
> > and most rules do have textual
> > descriptions available that can be displayed in the message header given
> > the proper config options.
>
> Do you (or anyone else) know what the proper config options are?
report Report = _REPORT_
Or you can just run the emai
> On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 02:07 +0200, Loic Condette wrote:
>> I just received a spam which match the following rules:
>
> Are we really talking about a single spam message that slipped past SA?
Yes, indeed. May I ask why?
>
>> The problem here is that I could not find a description for the
>> fol
Hi again list
John, thanks a lot for your answer and help, that is greatly appreciated :)
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Loic Condette wrote:
>
>> I just received a spam which match the following rules:
>>
>> [DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.34, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1=0.001,
>> HELO_NO_DOMAIN=0.001,
>> RDNS_NONE=0.79
28.10.2011 4:38, Ricardo Ardila Vetrovec kirjoitti:
> Greetings list!
>
> Excuse my english, is not so good.
>
> I have a spamassasin standalone server, my MX it is another server
>
> postfix query spamassassin for score and work greats
>
> My question it's about spam that is not recognize
Am 27.10.2011 18:15, schrieb R - elists:
>
> greetings SA users
>
> there sure seems to be a lot of from .info server spamming
>
> wierd temp registered .info domains spamming eh?
>
> for those of you with volume, large or small, care to share an SA tips on
> how you deal with .info domains?
>
11 matches
Mail list logo