I was surprised to see KAM_SOMETLD_ARE_BAD_TLD hit as a false
positive. The file was a DNS domain transfer file that someone
emailed as part of a security bug report.
To trigger the false positive include the following. In the real
world case this was in a dns zone file that was sent as an
attac
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021, jwmi...@gmail.com wrote:
John Hardin writes:
> From: John Hardin
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> >> 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
> >> [score:
On behalf of the Apache SpamAssassin Project, I am pleased to announce version
3.4.6 is available.
Release Notes -- Apache SpamAssassin -- Version 3.4.6
Introduction
Apache SpamAssassin 3.4.6 fixes two small but potentially annoying bugs in 3.4.5
*** On March 1, 2020, we stopped
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:40:47 -0400
Greg Troxel wrote:
> 3) sa-learn does not document that it is no longer for BAYES, but a
> general interface to mechanisms that learn.
It always was in theory.
> 4) There is a bonus of txrep_learn_penalty for learning spam,
> default 20. If the user
On 2021-04-12 18:21, John Capo wrote:
On Sun, April 11, 2021 17:44, Antony Stone wrote:
my point is valid as writed, remote pyzor servers dont know what is
spam or not localy, but it
could share results if wanted, but this was never implemented into
pyzord or pyzor client
I must be confused t
On Sun, April 11, 2021 17:44, Antony Stone wrote:
>> my point is valid as writed, remote pyzor servers dont know what is spam or
>> not localy, but it
>> could share results if wanted, but this was never implemented into pyzord or
>> pyzor client
>
> I must be confused then - what do you believe
John Hardin writes:
> From: John Hardin
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> >> 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
> >> [score: 1.]
> >> 0.5 BAYES_999
On 2021-04-12 16:29, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Loren Wilton wrote:
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to
100%
[score: 1.]
0.5 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to
100%
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Loren Wilton wrote:
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.]
0.5 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100%
[score: 1.]
I have
5.0 BAYES_99
On 12.04.21 16:48, Anders Gustafsson wrote:
I tried to send you exemples earlier, but your spam filter blocked my email.
apparently my spam filter works better ;-)
...publishing them on own web, via pastebin or similar service should be better.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas 12.04.2021 12:13 >>>
I tried to send you exemples earlier, but your spam filter blocked my email.
--
Med vänlig hälsning
Anders Gustafsson, ingenjör
anders.gustafs...@pedago.fi | Support +358 18 12060 | Direkt +358 9 315 45
121 | Mobil +358 40506 7099
Pedago interaktiv ab, Nygatan 7 B , AX-22100 MARIEHAMN, Å
This is a blend of a not-entirely-sure documentation bug report and
questions. I am using 3.4.5.
I used to use BAYES. To train it, I sorted ham that landed in spam
folders back to where it should have gone, and sorted spam that landed
in ham folders to "spam.manual". I had a cron job ran sa-le
On 2021-04-12 03:11 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> -2.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at
> https://www.dnswl.org/,
> high trust
> [203.160.71.180 listed in list.dnswl.org [1]] I looked up this, and the other
> one, and didn't find them in dnswl. As
> others said, if you are using publi
However, in 50_scores.cf, this line is commented out:
#score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 0 0.5 0 0.5
Maybe that's the problem?
no, there are other SORBS lists used:
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 2.499 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 # n=0 n=1
However, in 50_scores.cf, this line is commented out:
#score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 0 0.5 0 0.5
Maybe that's the problem?
no, there are other SORBS lists used:
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 2.499 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 # n=0
sorbs dnsbl missing, have you denied sorbs.net results ?, or is
spamassassin not testing sorbs.net anymore ?
On 11.04.21 18:22, Steve Dondley wrote:
Best I can tell, my SA config should be testing for sorbs. I've got
this line in /etc/spamassassin/v3220.pre:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plu
On 12.04.21 11:41, Anders Gustafsson wrote:
A LOT of the SPAM that is not blocked directly by RBLs seem to originate from
LANSET Corporation. Are they a
known spamsource?
do you have examples?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receiv
A LOT of the SPAM that is not blocked directly by RBLs seem to originate from
LANSET Corporation. Are they a
known spamsource?
--
Med vänlig hälsning
Anders Gustafsson, ingenjör
anders.gustafs...@pedago.fi | Support +358 18 12060 | Direkt +358 9 315 45
121 | Mobil +358 40506 7099
Pedago
>> -2.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at
>> https://www.dnswl.org/,
>>high trust
>>[203.160.71.180 listed in list.dnswl.org]
> I looked up this, and the other one, and didn't find them in dnswl. As
> others said, if you are usin
19 matches
Mail list logo
