On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, joe a wrote:
So, on the one hand I can add them to whitelist and be done with it, or
I can add them to missed HAM for re-learning.
Which is the best approach?
Do both.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org
joe a wrote:
Maybe I should not ask this, but . . .
A relatively innocuous member informational email from a local town Library
(monthly) gets marked as spam as shown below.
The BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 values are something I am toying with for other
reasons. Seems odd these should hit either o
I've been running SpamAssassin for longer than seems realistic (2.28
with 1998 Red Hat Hurricane?). Anyway I have started moving
everything mail to yet a new machine, Ubunto LTS 24.04.01. That only
supports SA 4.0.0. I've been contemplating the pain of sideloading
4.0.1 into the system. Then I
Maybe I should not ask this, but . . .
A relatively innocuous member informational email from a local town Library
(monthly) gets marked as spam as shown below.
The BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 values are something I am toying with for other
reasons. Seems odd these should hit either one of those te
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 26.09.24 18:11, Peter wrote:
I'm not very proficient at SA rules so I won't attempt to write one for
this, but perhaps this would help:
$ dig amiblocked.dnswl.org txt @1.1.1.1 +short
"You are blocked from using list.dnswl.org through publi
Root Cause Analysis (in order):
1) DNSWL does not provide blocked codes. That deviates from
most DNS-query based systems.
On 24.09.24 20:43, Matthias Leisi wrote:
This is wrong.
On 26/09/24 01:20, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I have checked with 1.1.1.1, where queries only return 127.0.
