Am 21.09.2014 um 04:37 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 21.09.2014 um 04:08 schrieb John Hardin:
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.09.2014 um 03:29 schrieb John Hardin:
> Would you care to share the spam that you posted the scores fo
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.09.2014 um 04:08 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.09.2014 um 03:29 schrieb John Hardin:
Would you care to share the spam that you posted the scores for at
the start of this thread? There's not much we can do wi
Am 21.09.2014 um 04:08 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Am 21.09.2014 um 03:29 schrieb John Hardin:
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
Am 20.09.2014 um 23:54 schrieb RW:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:48:05 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.09.2014 um 03:29 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.09.2014 um 23:54 schrieb RW:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:48:05 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
http://www.antivirushelptool.com/spamassassin/header/USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_W
and to make clear why Nick Edwars just should shut up
https://www.mail-archive.com/bind-users@lists.isc.org/msg19672.html
the out-of-context there where two *off-list* messages i brought
back to the list *including an answer* with asking why respond
in private and days later Nick was bored and tri
Am 21.09.2014 um 03:44 schrieb Nick Edwards:
> Dont pay too much attention to reindl, he is a well known internet
> troll, and highly abusive to those who disagree with him, hes been
> kicked off or moderated on so many lists now, most folks have lost
> count, and most folks ignore him, the stain
Dont pay too much attention to reindl, he is a well known internet
troll, and highly abusive to those who disagree with him, hes been
kicked off or moderated on so many lists now, most folks have lost
count, and most folks ignore him, the stain is best treated as a
stain, washed away with good rule
Am 21.09.2014 um 03:29 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Am 20.09.2014 um 23:54 schrieb RW:
>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:48:05 +0200
>>> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
http://www.antivirushelptool.com/spamassassin/header/USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL
that's too much a
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.09.2014 um 23:54 schrieb RW:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:48:05 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
http://www.antivirushelptool.com/spamassassin/header/USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL
that's too much and gives even a message on systems where
BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 would
Am 20.09.2014 um 23:54 schrieb RW:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:48:05 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> http://www.antivirushelptool.com/spamassassin/header/USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL
>> that's too much and gives even a message on systems where
>> BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 would reach 8.0 a negative score
>
>
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:48:05 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> http://www.antivirushelptool.com/spamassassin/header/USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL
> that's too much and gives even a message on systems where
> BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 would reach 8.0 a negative score
Do you have any evidence for it being too much?
http://www.antivirushelptool.com/spamassassin/header/USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL
that's too much and gives even a message on systems where
BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 would reach 8.0 a negative score
adjusted also some other scores in "local.cf"
reputation to prevent from false positives is good
but not that
12 matches
Mail list logo
