Re: Spamassasin not as effective anymore

On Sep 29, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Mark London wrote: > On 9/29/2014 12:58 PM, Mark London wrote: >> On 9/29/2014 4:21 AM, users-digest-h...@spamassassin.apache.org wrote: >>> >>> From: Lorenzo Thurman >>> Date: 9/26/2014 10:59 PM >>> I’ve been using spamassasin for a number of years with excellent

RE: Spamassasin not as effective anymore

From: Mark London [mailto:m...@psfc.mit.edu] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:59 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Spamassasin not as effective anymore On 9/29/2014 12:58 PM, Mark London wrote: On 9/29/2014 4:21 AM, users-digest-h...@spamassassin.apache.org

Re: Spamassasin not as effective anymore

On 9/29/2014 12:58 PM, Mark London wrote: On 9/29/2014 4:21 AM, users-digest-help@spamassassin.apache.orgwrote: From: Lorenzo Thurman Date: 9/26/2014 10:59 PM I’ve been using spamassasin for a number of years with excellent results. But, now over the last month or so, it has been scoring spam

Re: what's wrong

On September 29, 2014 10:02:06 PM "A. Schulze" wrote: > Trusted network and internal network in local.cf for all your own > ipv6, ipv4 :) ups, I had no settings at all for trusted/internal/msa networks :-/ Remember to add non routeble ips aswell this will speedup rbl checking 127.0.0.1 is h

Re: what's wrong

Benny Pedersen: Trusted network and internal network in local.cf for all your own ipv6, ipv4 :) ups, I had no settings at all for trusted/internal/msa networks :-/ Thanks for the pointer Andreas

Re: what's wrong

On September 29, 2014 8:16:28 PM "A. Schulze" wrote: for me the last untrusted relay *should be* smtp.cesky-hosting.cz but it looks like sa think it's 90.182.154.138 what settings I should check? Trusted network and internal network in local.cf for all your own ipv6, ipv4 :) In case of fine

Re: UTF-8 rule generator script Re: UTF-8 rules, what am I missing?

On 09/27/2014 01:16 PM, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Adi wrote: >> I don't know if SA converts the text on the fly. > > In my experience it does not. There's been some discussion of charset > normalization, but I don't think that's been implemented yet, so SA is > still seeing whateve

what's wrong

Hello, today I was pointed to a message with these headers: X-Spam-Score: 6.789 X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.789 tag=-999 tag2=5 kill=6 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_MIMEOLE=1.843, RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP=2.499, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS=2.443] Received: from smtp.cesky-hosting.cz (smt

Re: half-OT: please remove spam-markers from subjects

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/29/2014 11:19 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist: >> On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >>> please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged >>> before reply - they lead often that a m

Re: half-OT: please remove spam-markers from subjects

Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist: > On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before >> reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk- instead the >> list-folder :-) > > Please teach your users to filter on the L

Re: half-OT: please remove spam-markers from subjects

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before > reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk- instead the > list-folder :-) Please teach your users to filter on the List-ID: head

Re: Spamassasin not as effective anymore

On 9/29/2014 4:21 AM, users-digest-h...@spamassassin.apache.org wrote: From: Lorenzo Thurman Date: 9/26/2014 10:59 PM I’ve been using spamassasin for a number of years with excellent results. But, now over the last month or so, it has been scoring spam very low. It still catches most spam, bu

half-OT: please remove spam-markers from subjects

please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk- instead the list-folder :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Marcin Mirosław wrote: W dniu 10.09.2014 o 06:57, John Hardin pisze: On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Marcin Mirosław wrote: W dniu 09.09.2014 o 15:19, John Hardin pisze: On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Marcin Mirosław wrote: Hi again, I noticed FP on mentioned rule when checking ham email. Du

Re: Spamassasin not as effective anymore

On 09/29/2014 05:27 PM, Lorenzo Thurman wrote: I’ve created a paste bin with a couple of sample emails here: http://pastebin.com/KfYrGMm8 reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org, replace this with zen.spamhaus.org reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org, This is included in

Re: Spamassasin not as effective anymore

I’ve created a paste bin with a couple of sample emails here: http://pastebin.com/KfYrGMm8 I’m running spam assassin on a my Mail server Ubuntu 14.04. I use postfix as my MTA. Spamassasin is at 3.4.0, with razor and I have these recipient restrictions set in postfix: smtpd_recipient_restrictions

Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL

W dniu 10.09.2014 o 06:57, John Hardin pisze: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Marcin Mirosław wrote: > >> W dniu 09.09.2014 o 15:19, John Hardin pisze: >>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Marcin Mirosław wrote: >>> Hi again, I noticed FP on mentioned rule when checking ham email. Due to confidential cont

Re: Spamassasin not as effective anymore

I’ve be using spamassasin for a number of years with excellent results. I recently updated my SA version to 3.4.0_13 and found that it caught much more than it had been. It’s not enough to run sa-update, you need to keep the install version up to date as well. Just updated SA to 3.4.0 on C

Re: Spam messages autolearned as ham

26.09.2014, 02:53, Amir Caspi kirjoitti: > As a result, I've got plenty of "great" fresh spam to feed the filter. I've > also got plenty of great ham. Could you take a share in MassChecks? Currently SpamAssassin masschecks seem to need more fresh spam and ham. Would be great to have you within th