>If you set "normalize_charset 1" you can just test UTF-8
Thanks a lot RW
fool me! it was on the docs and i skimmed it through.. please accept my
apologizes...
thanks again and have a nice weekned!
--Pedro.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:49:36 -0700
Marc Perkel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Well, maybe there's some good news. Traditional solutions for stage 4
> lung cancer are not good but on the cutting edge of technology it looks
> much better. Below is a letter I sent to a former employer explaining
> my cu
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
> I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
> adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
> SA *could* potentially have a
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
SA *could* potentially have a rule that checks the current historical
average
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:56:24 + (UTC)
Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Hi!
> can anyone, please, tell me what is the correct way to write a rule
> that matches text with accents when i do not know the enconding??
> shall i write a rule for utf-8,another one for iso-8859-1, etc?? i
> hope no... Thanks
On 21/10/16 18:53, Paul Stead wrote:
tagmatch TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_LOWSCORE _TXREP_IP_MEAN_
/^\-[0-9]{2,}(?:\.[0-9]+)?$/
describe TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_LOWSCORE TxRep mean score quite low
scoreTAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE -0.1
Also - typo on score rulename!
--
Paul Stead
Systems Engineer
Zen Inte
Hi!
can anyone, please, tell me what is the correct way to write a rule that
matches text with accents when i do not know the enconding??
shall i write a rule for utf-8,another one for iso-8859-1, etc?? i hope no...
Thanks!
-Pedro
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
A plugin I've developed could be handy here:
https://github.com/fmbla/spamassassin-tagmatch
tagmatch TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE _TXREP_IP_MEAN_
/^[1-9][0-9]+(?:\.[0-9]+)?$/
describe TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE TXRep mean score quite large
scoreTAGMATCH
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
SA *could* potentially have a rule that checks the current historical
average that AWL uses...
I suggest you file a N
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Axb wrote:
On 10/21/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their contacts to the SA static whitelist.
Imo, this you'd normally do at MTA and/or glue level to bypass expensive SA
cont
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Kevin Golding wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:48:41 +0100, simplerezo wrote:
> very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for example, send me invoices as zi
On 10/21/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their contacts to the SA static whitelist.
Imo, this you'd normally do at MTA and/or glue level to bypass expensive
SA content scanning and save time & cycles.
On 20 Oct 2016, at 12:14, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Whitelisted senders get a _huge_ bonus (I think it's 100 points by
default, maybe customizable), so they won't be affected if you do it
right.
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their con
On 10/21/2016 6:48 AM, simplerezo wrote:
it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
Absolutely.
very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for exam
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:48:41 +0100, simplerezo
wrote:
very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not
yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for example, send me invoices as zip
attachment (yes, there is some big com
On 20/10/16 17:44, Nicola Piazzi wrote:
Why not try my powerful plugin to reduce score of known users ?
Is based on people that answer to us and in my case, after 3 week of learning,
it HIT 70% of incoming messages that are absolutely ham
Looks really interesting. How it behaves in ipv6 environ
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:48:41 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> > it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false
> > negative.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
>
> That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have
> not yet
> it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
Absolutely.
> very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for example, send me invoices as zip
attachment
On 20.10.16 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known to not
send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false positive.
it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
That's
exactly what I want to rely on
19 matches
Mail list logo
