On Wednesday 11 January 2017 14:31:15 John Hardin wrote:
> That's more complex than needed. The message subject is automatically
> included in body rules, so you only need __LOCAL_BODY_PRODUCTS.
>
Cool, I did not know that. txs.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:18:58 -0800
Alan Hodgson wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 January 2017 16:58:39 Michael B Allen wrote:
> > Is there a way to add a rule that simply matches specific key words?
> >
> > For example, if someone actually names my product it's basically
> > guaranteed not to be spam. In
On 11/01/2017, 09:52, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
On 10/01/2017, 23:01, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
> you setup a new server with 3.3.2 in 2017?
>
> current is 3.4.1 and i know people running it on Debian for more
>than a
> year - sorry but why are you doing that?
>
>>>Am
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017, Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Wednesday 11 January 2017 16:58:39 Michael B Allen wrote:
Is there a way to add a rule that simply matches specific key words?
For example, if someone actually names my product it's basically
guaranteed not to be spam. In this case, I want to just wh
On Wednesday 11 January 2017 16:58:39 Michael B Allen wrote:
> Is there a way to add a rule that simply matches specific key words?
>
> For example, if someone actually names my product it's basically
> guaranteed not to be spam. In this case, I want to just whitelist it
> (or maybe apply -10 to t
Is there a way to add a rule that simply matches specific key words?
For example, if someone actually names my product it's basically
guaranteed not to be spam. In this case, I want to just whitelist it
(or maybe apply -10 to the score).
Any pointers would be appreciated.
Mike
On 10.01.17 14:13, RW wrote:
>The pastebin example was auto-learned as ham, it may be hard to
>counter this with manual training.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:29:51 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
depends... I found out proper trainning can fix quite fast
On 11.01.17 14:49, RW wrote:
Since ma
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Antony Stone
wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 January 2017 at 16:22:13, Michael B Allen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Antony Stone wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 11 January 2017 at 15:57:20, Michael B Allen wrote:
>> >> Is it possible to send a message to myself
On Wednesday 11 January 2017 at 16:22:13, Michael B Allen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Antony Stone wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 January 2017 at 15:57:20, Michael B Allen wrote:
> >> Is it possible to send a message to myself to see what SA thinks of my
> >> mail rig?
> >>
> >> If I j
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Antony Stone
wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 January 2017 at 15:57:20, Michael B Allen wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to send a message to myself to see what SA thinks of my mail
>> rig?
>
>> If I just send a message from one account to another, of course it
>> never leaves
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:57:20 -0500
Michael B Allen wrote:
> Is it possible to send a message to myself to see what SA thinks of
> my mail rig?
>
> I'm using CentOS 7.2, spamassassin 3.4.0 and postfix 2.10 and running
> spamd + spamc in postfix master.cf > sendmail > procmail > .Spam
> folder.
>
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017, Michael B Allen wrote:
Is it possible to send a message to myself to see what SA thinks of my mail rig?
I'm using CentOS 7.2, spamassassin 3.4.0 and postfix 2.10 and running
spamd + spamc in postfix master.cf > sendmail > procmail > .Spam
folder.
If I just send a message f
On Wednesday 11 January 2017 at 15:57:20, Michael B Allen wrote:
> Is it possible to send a message to myself to see what SA thinks of my mail
> rig?
> If I just send a message from one account to another, of course it
> never leaves the server and thus dodges SA. Is there a clever way to
> tempo
Is it possible to send a message to myself to see what SA thinks of my mail rig?
I'm using CentOS 7.2, spamassassin 3.4.0 and postfix 2.10 and running
spamd + spamc in postfix master.cf > sendmail > procmail > .Spam
folder.
If I just send a message from one account to another, of course it
never
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:29:51 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> On 10.01.17 10:48, Emin Akbulut wrote:
> >> >Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
> [deleted]
> >> >Message source:
> >> >http://pastebin.com/nnN0jGw8
>
> >On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:43:40 +0100 Matus U
On 10/01/2017, 23:01, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
you setup a new server with 3.3.2 in 2017?
current is 3.4.1 and i know people running it on Debian for more than a
year - sorry but why are you doing that?
Am 10.01.2017 um 23:09 schrieb Andrea:
You¹re right.
It seems that something was left over
On 10.01.17 10:48, Emin Akbulut wrote:
>Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
[deleted]
>Message source:
>http://pastebin.com/nnN0jGw8
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:43:40 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
clear case of mistrained BAYES causing message being marked as ham.
yo
Hi,
I had looked into autolearn a few months ago. A message will only be
automatically learned as spam, if
* the message has not been learned before, and
* the overall score is above bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam, and
* it scores more than 3 points from “body” rules alone, and
* it scores more
18 matches
Mail list logo
