Bill Cole:
> If your mailstore uses mbox or Maildir, the unmaintained antique software
> named "procmail" could be used for delivery. As an antique myself, I use it,
> but I cannot in good conscience recommend anyone else adopt it de novo.
It looks like procmail is maintained again, by the origina
On 2023-02-28 at 22:46:54 UTC-0500 (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:46:54 -0800
(PST))
Richard Troy
is rumored to have said:
Hi All,
I've been subscribed for ... close to 15 years, I think? Heck, 20 is
maybe possible! ... Just reading I have learned a hell of a lot,
thanks to this community, but have n
Hi All,
I've been subscribed for ... close to 15 years, I think? Heck, 20 is maybe
possible! ... Just reading I have learned a hell of a lot, thanks to this
community, but have never posted before. Now's the time, though, because I
really need some help and am not sure where to look for it.
From: "Bill Cole"
It is my understanding that an automated rescoring job was run quite some
time ago (before I was on the PMC) to generate the Bayes scores, which
determined that to be the best supplemental score to give to the greater
certainty.
I was around in those days. My memory isn't
joe a skrev den 2023-02-28 17:37:
Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
Noted in a header this morning:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.]
* 0.2 BAYES_999
On 2023-02-28 at 13:38:35 UTC-0500 (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 13:38:35 -0500)
joe a
is rumored to have said:
On 2/28/2023 12:05 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
> From: joe a
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500
>
> Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they
are.
> I'd expect
>From my small experience... I score BAYES_999 with 2.00, it was
suggested to me months ago.
But nowadays I'd be more careful and do some more testing: I'd check which
messages have only BAYES_99 and which have BAYES_999, If you are
absolutely certain that BYES_999 are only and definitively spam,
On 2/28/2023 12:05 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
> From: joe a
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500
>
> Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
> I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
>
> Noted in a header this morning:
>
> * 3.5
Rob McEwen wrote:
Benny,
All I know for sure is this - for MANY legit emails - DKIM fails some
days later
Hours.
I've recently learned about this, in the context of trying to
welcomelist legitimate senders. A 2-hour validity window for the DKIM
signature is pretty common. :(
- when it
> From: joe a
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500
>
> Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
> I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
>
> Noted in a header this morning:
>
> * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 1
Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
Noted in a header this morning:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.]
* 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99
11 matches
Mail list logo
