Hi,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Alex skrev den 2017-02-25 01:18:
>
>> Is there something more that needs to be done than the above?
>
>
> what sa version ?
>
> i know it works with 3.4.1
>
> but have disabled my own rules again
This is a relatively recent svn release
Alex skrev den 2017-02-25 01:18:
Is there something more that needs to be done than the above?
what sa version ?
i know it works with 3.4.1
but have disabled my own rules again
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Paul Stead
wrote:
> I’ve posted this before, this is how I manage these nasty TLDs:
>
> Make sure WLBLEval is enabled:
>
> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::WLBLEval
>
> Then add the TLDs to a URI_HOST list:
>
> enlist_uri_host (NEWSPAMMY) top
> enlist_u
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:07:50 +
> RW wrote:
>
>> > OK. Any FPs, though? That's the other half of the test.
>
>> No, but it's pretty unlikely there would be.
>
> Actually, it's very likely there will be a lot of FPs, but it's also
>
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:07:50 +
RW wrote:
> > OK. Any FPs, though? That's the other half of the test.
> No, but it's pretty unlikely there would be.
Actually, it's very likely there will be a lot of FPs, but it's also
very likely that any given user of the list won't see them. That's
bec
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:22:17 -0500
Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:14:33 +
> RW wrote:
>
> > FWIW I ran that list against 3k spams received from late 2015
> > onwards. I got 2 hits on 2 separate addesses both timestamped with
> > 2012.
>
> OK. Any FPs, though? That's the ot
