cannot think this would do good things for
performance.
Any experience, comments, etc?
--
Kind Regards,
David
David Flanigan
Mobile: +1.513.560.8231
E: d...@flanigan.net W: http://www.flanigan.net
--
Juan,
You did the correct thing. Setting the score to zero will disable the
rule.
How are you running spamassassin (spamd, milter, MailScanner, procmail)?
---
Kind Regards,
David
David Flanigan
Mobile: +1.513.560.8231
E: d...@flanigan.net W: http://www.flanigan.net
On 2015-01-09
thousands (or tens of thousands) SPAM message
but only a couple hundred HAM messages?
Kind Regards,
David
David Flanigan
Mobile: +1.513.560.8231
E: daveflanigan.net W: http://www.flanigan.net
On 2015-01-08 18:13, David B Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Alex Regan wrote:
> How about u
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:13:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Precleaning SA market spam from Mbox?
> David Flanigan wrote:
> > Spam [WINDOWS-1252?]Guru�s:
> >
> > I have a question that I am hoping one of you may be able to answer.
> >
> > We run the latest v
Spam Gurus:
I have a question that I am hoping one of you may be able to answer.
We run the latest version of SA running spamc/spamd with a global (not per
user)
config, and tag messages as spam for latter filtering by the mail client, as is
appropriate. However, now we have some people (me
Hello oh gurus of Spamassassin:
I have a, hopefully, quick question with regards to my implementation of
Spamassassin.
In a nutshell it appears that Spamassassin is taking the time and energy to
check user-
unknown e-mail.
I am running Spamassassin 3.1.1
Attached is my sendmail log showin
On Wed, 3 May 2006 09:14:11 -0400, Thomas Deaton wrote
> Is there any way to block this flood of html stock market spam?
>
> thanks
>
> Tom Deaton
> Guilford County Information Services
Tom,
Assuming you are running SA - have you looked at the SARE community rules? The
SARE_STOCKS rule was u
On Tue, 2 May 2006 22:20:16 0200, Michael Monnerie wrote
> On Dienstag, 2. Mai 2006 18:57 David Flanigan wrote:
> > My secondary MX has only rudimentary anti-spam filtering, and I
> > thought SA was assuming it was safe if passed by that server.
>
> It would be safer to t
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:15:56 -0700, Matthew.van.Eerde wrote
> You'll get better results by analyzing the hosts that talked to your
> secondary
> MX. The only way to analyze them is to believe the Received: headers added
> by
> your secondary MX. They only way to analyze those headers is to mak
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:04:47 -0700, Matthew.van.Eerde wrote
> David Flanigan wrote:
> > Since a inordinate % of spam seems to go through my secondary MX, I have
> > been
> > treating it as being outside of my trusted_network
>
> "Trusted" means you trust it
>
> ALL_TRUSTED doesn't mean the host that handed you the mail is trusted.
> It means *all* servers in the Received: chain are trusted.
>
> So if servers A and B are trusted, but C is not...
>
> A->B->You
> would trigger all_trusted
> C->B->You
> would NOT trigger all_trusted
>
>
Theo,
Thanks for this. Now I feel stubid for bother the list. I have been running SA
for
some time, and didn't notice that change. My bad.
Thanks for the quick reply!
Dave
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:39:48 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:58:42AM -0400, David
Hello Spamasssins,
I am having an odd problem, I was hoping for some insight from those more
adept than
I.
I am trying to get Razor working with Spamassassin to little effect. To put it
simply,
SA never uses RAZOR, and I have never in thousands of messages
(http://www.flanigan.net/spam) s
13 matches
Mail list logo
