On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:35:54 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> RW skrev den 2015-08-06 21:03:
>
> > "WOT also uses information from numerous
> >trusted sources, such as phishing and malware blacklists, to
> > provide the WOT community with real time information."
> >
> > It look like the part
On 06/08/15 15:35, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The integration would be trivial however, WOT does not provide their
data or an API to their data that I'm aware of except for buying it at
https://www.mywot.com/en/business
https://www.mywot.com/wiki/API
API looks open to use, as long as following t
RW skrev den 2015-08-06 21:03:
"WOT also uses information from numerous
trusted sources, such as phishing and malware blacklists, to provide
the WOT community with real time information."
It look like the part of WOT that might be useful for mail filtering
comes from third parties.
ap
On 06.08.2015 21:03, RW wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:35:52 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 8/6/2015 8:38 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a
very valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
integration with SA
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:35:52 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 8/6/2015 8:38 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
> >
> > Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a
> > very valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
> > integration with SA will be invaluabl
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-08-06 16:35:
I'll reach out. Perhaps they would consider a free for most model
like we have used for RBLs.
and another is https://www.trustpilot.com/
On 2015-08-06 11:53, RW wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 11:38:56 -0400
Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
Hi! I'm getting headers like this:
Aug 4 04:24:58 agrajag spamc[2557]: skipped message, greater than
max message size (512000 bytes)
Now, I'm just not sure where to *change* that;
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 11:38:56 -0400
Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> Hi! I'm getting headers like this:
>
> Aug 4 04:24:58 agrajag spamc[2557]: skipped message, greater than
> max message size (512000 bytes)
>
> Now, I'm just not sure where to *change* that; apparently, it's set
On 8/6/2015 11:38 AM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
Hi! I'm getting headers like this:
Aug 4 04:24:58 agrajag spamc[2557]: skipped message, greater than max
message size (512000 bytes)
Now, I'm just not sure where to *change* that; apparently, it's set
via the "-s max_size"
Am 06.08.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Ken D'Ambrosio:
Hi! I'm getting headers like this:
Aug 4 04:24:58 agrajag spamc[2557]: skipped message, greater than max
message size (512000 bytes)
Now, I'm just not sure where to *change* that; apparently, it's set via
the "-s max_siz
Hi! I'm getting headers like this:
Aug 4 04:24:58 agrajag spamc[2557]: skipped message, greater than max
message size (512000 bytes)
Now, I'm just not sure where to *change* that; apparently, it's set via
the "-s max_size" for spamc, but I have no idea where/how that
Sujit Acharyya-choudhury skrev den 2015-08-06 14:38:
Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a very
valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
integration with SA will be invaluable.
same here, it just sadly not done yet :(
i have talked long with develo
On 8/6/2015 8:38 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a very
valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
integration with SA will be invaluable.
Regards
Sujit Choudhury
The integration would be trivial however,
Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a very
valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an integration
with SA will be invaluable.
Regards
Sujit Choudhury
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
14 matches
Mail list logo
