On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, joea wrote:
Having some difficulty grasping why some SPAM is getting thru yet some
similar is marked.
They have different source email address and subject, yet identical
"layout" 3 http links, 3 graphics items and like that.
"Layout" generally isn't relevant.
The link
Having some difficulty grasping why some SPAM is getting thru yet some similar
is marked.
They have different source email address and subject, yet identical "layout" 3
http links, 3 graphics items and like that.
When I save the message source (Mime.822 file) and do sa-learn --spam file it
On 30-03-2012 10:11, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 30.03.2012 17:44, schrieb Richard Doyle:
On 03/29/2012 05:10 PM, Frank Chan wrote:
On 02-03-2012 15:49, Frank Chan wrote:
Here are some samples of this spam in pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/djidF7dg
http://pastebin.com/DQan00ve
http://pastebin.
On 30-03-2012 08:44, Richard Doyle wrote:
On 03/29/2012 05:10 PM, Frank Chan wrote:
On 02-03-2012 15:49, Frank Chan wrote:
Here are some samples of this spam in pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/djidF7dg
http://pastebin.com/DQan00ve
http://pastebin.com/1PizAzMv
http://pastebin.com/Hd6vVpYi
Thank
On 3/30/2012 6:59 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I believe he is referring to a rule with multiple alternatives.
body SPAMWORD /\b(word1|word2|word3|word4)\b/
You know you have a match, but you don't know WHICH word matched. I
think debug mode is the only way to get this level of detail.
That, or
Am 30.03.2012 17:44, schrieb Richard Doyle:
> On 03/29/2012 05:10 PM, Frank Chan wrote:
>> On 02-03-2012 15:49, Frank Chan wrote:
>>> Here are some samples of this spam in pastebin:
>>>
>>> http://pastebin.com/djidF7dg
>>> http://pastebin.com/DQan00ve
>>> http://pastebin.com/1PizAzMv
>>> http://pas
On 3/30/2012 12:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I checked my logs for the last 30 days. RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED hit 505
times, but did not hit a single spam message. There is also not a
single case where it would have changed the ham/spam designation of the
message if it had not hit.
In other words,
On 3/30/2012 11:51 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Some human being decided on the -3.0 score.
> Yes, and I could argue based on my corpus that -3.0 is not harsh enough
> is my basic point.
>
> I agree I'm not looking below the surface of the rules very much,
> though. I am simply saying that XYZ
On 03/30/2012 05:52 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I would like to consider tflags for all 'spam for hire' scores be
changed to net nice noautolearn
this way, at least you aren't adding insult to injury.
Please open a bug but what benefit do you see this having in particular
for the RCVD_IN_RP_
I would like to consider tflags for all 'spam for hire' scores be
changed to net nice noautolearn
this way, at least you aren't adding insult to injury.
Please open a bug but what benefit do you see this having in particular
for the RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED?
regards,
KAM
Some human being decided on the -3.0 score.
Yes, and I could argue based on my corpus that -3.0 is not harsh enough
is my basic point.
I agree I'm not looking below the surface of the rules very much,
though. I am simply saying that XYZ rule on my corpus has an extremely
good S/O.
Can any
On 03/29/2012 05:10 PM, Frank Chan wrote:
On 02-03-2012 15:49, Frank Chan wrote:
Here are some samples of this spam in pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/djidF7dg
http://pastebin.com/DQan00ve
http://pastebin.com/1PizAzMv
http://pastebin.com/Hd6vVpYi
Thank you,
Frank
On 02-03-2012 14:31, Jeremy McS
On 3/30/2012 6:01 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-03-30 11:52, Tom Kinghorn skrev:
>> On 30/03/2012 11:47, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>> body SPAMWORD /^spamword$/
>>> describe SPAMWORD spamword found in body
>>> score SPAMWORD 0.1
>>>
>>> untested :)
>>>
>> Thats exactly what I am doing.
>> Its s
On 3/30/12 2:26 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
I'd argue that their inability to offer a functional opt-out is
bordering on spam-support.
months ago, it was non functional (you needed to join, which gave them
permission to spam you in order to opt-out)
they finally (and I hope it was my constant bitchin
On 3/29/12 6:06 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
As a side note, linkedin likely had someone from FreeBSD list use the
email address to invite people. I doubt linkedin actually did it.
They are an easily abused system but I've never seen them actually
support spam.
as in 'technically', yes li
Den 2012-03-30 11:52, Tom Kinghorn skrev:
On 30/03/2012 11:47, Benny Pedersen wrote:
body SPAMWORD /^spamword$/
describe SPAMWORD spamword found in body
score SPAMWORD 0.1
untested :)
Thats exactly what I am doing.
Its shows the description (from the 'describe' section) in the spam
report, n
On 30/03/2012 11:47, Benny Pedersen wrote:
body SPAMWORD /^spamword$/
describe SPAMWORD spamword found in body
score SPAMWORD 0.1
untested :)
Thats exactly what I am doing.
Its shows the description (from the 'describe' section) in the spam
report, not which word was matched.
Thanks
Tom
Den 2012-03-30 10:34, Tom Kinghorn skrev:
Good morning list.
If I have a body rule checking for various banned words in a message
body, is there a way to indicate which word matched in the
spam-report?
eg: when an IP is matched against an RBL, the ip is shown in the
spam-report.
body SPAMWOR
Good morning list.
If I have a body rule checking for various banned words in a message
body, is there a way to indicate which word matched in the spam-report?
eg: when an IP is matched against an RBL, the ip is shown in the
spam-report.
I would like to do the same for a text rule.
Is this
19 matches
Mail list logo
