That's the thing. Why do they happen? I don't want them to happen?
What's their relevance in a URIBL check?
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 09/17/2013 08:35 AM, Abhijeet Rastogi wrote:
>>
>> HI Axb,
>>
>> But, we don't require A and NS lookups for a domain to query for it's
>> ex
Alex,
> I realize fuzzyOCR is very limited and resource-intensive, so will
> probably just continue to use body and header rules to catch them
> until they become more of a problem, unless someone has other
> ideas
>From past experience, there were very few spam where fuzzyOCR would have
made
I am running SA on my private mail server. Mail comes in directly for one
domain (using no-ip.com to get around a port block), and via fetchmail for
several others. I have listed the MXes at no-ip.com and the ISP machines
that fetchmail goes to as "trusted", and my (static) domain IP as
"intern
If you want to disable specific rules from the standard rules kit
just set their score to zero in your local.cf config file.
A rule with a score of zero isn't run.
As the local.cf file is processed after the /var/lib/spamassassin contents
that's how to over-ride the standard rules in a way that w
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:20:41 -0400
David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100
> RW wrote:
>
> > It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding
> > towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it
> > becomes more complicated if one needs to handl
How I'm invoking Spamassassin: CPanel on my webserver
In Cpanel: no Spamassassin version information, Score (required_score)=5,
Spam Box=On, no special config specified
My platform: CENTOS 6.4 i686 virtuozzo
My problem:
LFD sends me the following email from root at random times, sometimes tw
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100
RW wrote:
> It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding
> towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it
> becomes more complicated if one needs to handle threholds close to, or
> below, zero and which aren't multiples of 0
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:12:03 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I assume he knows about all that. Yet, being confronted with the
> initial mystery of 4.9 vs 5.0 and a sneaky spam refusing to cross
> that all-magic threshold, he seems to have forgotten about rounding.
If you reread the original p
Hi,
>> http://pastebin.com/0xWK4mws
>>
>> This is hitting bayes00 because I assume very little of the body is
>> spammy. I've added body and subject rules to catch these, but perhaps
>> this relates to the recent fuzzyOCR conversation and may help there?
>
> I was expecting to see the image and am
On 09/17/2013 08:35 AM, Abhijeet Rastogi wrote:
HI Axb,
But, we don't require A and NS lookups for a domain to query for it's
existence in URIBL, right? I don't see the point of doing the NS
lookups in URIBL module.
these lookups check a URI domain's NS and A record. If not there, where
woul
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 00:59 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400 Harry Putnam wrote:
The real reason for what you're observing here is (as RW pointed out in
a follow-up post), that SPF_SOFTFAIL has a score of 0.972 -- that, and
you looking at the rounded scores in the brief summar
11 matches
Mail list logo
