Do i use this with the ixhash plugin?
> Am 07.12.2015 um 05:41 schrieb Marc Perkel :
>
> ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
> bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
> describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
> tflags
ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
tflags CTYME_IXHASH net
score CTYME_IXHASH 5
Let me know if it's useful.
--
Marc Perk
On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 09:28:08 +0100
Torsten Bronger wrote:
> Hallöchen!
>
> Bill Cole writes:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > Indicates that someone has sabotaged your SA scores. Those are
> > entirely insane scores for those tests. If the default values were
> > used, that message would not have been miscla
thanks for "meta IXHASH_CHECK (GENERIC_IXHASH || NIXSPAM_IXHASH ||
SEM_IXHASH)" - wasn't aware that you can build a meta-rule based on when
other rules hit that easy
repalcement for DIGSET_MULTIPLE is now enabled with 0.001 for testing
Am 06.12.2015 um 11:32 schrieb Axb:
On 12/06/2015 11:28 A
On 12/06/2015 11:28 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.12.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Axb:
On 12/06/2015 11:05 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
would it be possible to consider "GENERIC_IXHASH", "NIXSPAM_IXHASH" and
"SEM_IXHASH" also for DIGEST_MULTIPLE?
not in default SA's metas
The third party iXhash plug
Am 06.12.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Axb:
On 12/06/2015 11:05 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
would it be possible to consider "GENERIC_IXHASH", "NIXSPAM_IXHASH" and
"SEM_IXHASH" also for DIGEST_MULTIPLE?
not in default SA's metas
The third party iXhash plugin is not included in default SA.
over the m
On 12/06/2015 11:05 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
would it be possible to consider "GENERIC_IXHASH", "NIXSPAM_IXHASH" and
"SEM_IXHASH" also for DIGEST_MULTIPLE?
not in default SA's metas
The third party iXhash plugin is not included in default SA.
over the months i see a lot of hits "PYZOR + IXHA
would it be possible to consider "GENERIC_IXHASH", "NIXSPAM_IXHASH" and
"SEM_IXHASH" also for DIGEST_MULTIPLE?
over the months i see a lot of hits "PYZOR + IXHASH", "RAZOR + IXHASH"
without "PYZOR + RAZOR" and currently DIGEST_MULTIPLE don't hit
spamassassin-iXhash2-2.05-7.fc21.noarch
s
Am 06.12.2015 um 09:28 schrieb Torsten Bronger:
And don't trust whoever set your BAYES and RAZOR scores to have
anything to do with your spam control.
Well, I don't trust Razor anymore! If there is such a thing as "the
opposite of spam", then these mails.
nonsense, hence this is a scoring
Hallöchen!
Bill Cole writes:
> [...]
>
> Indicates that someone has sabotaged your SA scores. Those are
> entirely insane scores for those tests. If the default values were
> used, that message would not have been misclassified.
I myself set those values, almost 10 years ago. They have served
v
10 matches
Mail list logo