At 01:18 14/11/2005, mouss wrote:
Jeff Chan a écrit :
Does anyone have a geocities rule that catches most of the spams
and has few FPs?
after looking at many of these, I ended up just
giving 4 points to any
http://*.geocities.com/*/? (written as perl expression of course).
together with Baye
> Does anyone know the logic behind this spam bombing? I have a friend
> who has a gmx.de account and he has gotten 0 german spam in it... yet
> here in the u.s. we are getting bombarded by the spam.
>
There is logic behind spamming ? News to me ;-)
Personally I think it's incredibly arrogant of
At 09:53 16/05/2005, Jo wrote:
Simon Byrnand wrote:
Hi All,
After going from 2.64 to 3.0.3 I thought Bayes was working much better -
previously certain classes of spam were being consistently reported as
ham, scoring BAYES_00 no matter what I did, or how much manual training I
did
Hi All,
After going from 2.64 to 3.0.3 I thought Bayes was working much better -
previously certain classes of spam were being consistently reported as ham,
scoring BAYES_00 no matter what I did, or how much manual training I did.
(Autolearning enabled)
After upgrading to 3.0.3 and clearing the
Hi Everyone,
Upgraded from 2.64 to 3.0.3 today + a few of the SARE rulesets, and I'm
noticing a spamd warning message in the log files occasionally that was
not occuring on the test server I evaluated 3.0.3 on:
May 9 21:41:39 mail spamd[30290]: Use of uninitialized value in
substitution (s///) a
At 01:42 19/03/2005, Martin Hepworth wrote:
I think the reason is that they think we might trust the secondary MX more
than anything else and therefore let it through without checks.
I don't know about that. I think its more just a matter of the way the bulk
mailing software works. A "normal" SM
Hi All,
Still testing SA 3.0.2 and have now noticed that doing a bayes database
import uses in excess of 220MB of ram during processing, just on the first
phase of processing old_bayes_seen alone. The file size is only 20MB. Is
this normal ?
The test machine I'm trying the new version on only h
Hi All,
Another snag I've run into upgrading from 2.64 to 3.0.2 is that the -V
--virtual-config option which we rely on is now gone.
In the UPGRADE file it claims that --virtual-config-dir replaces it, but I
don't see how it can. Our user prefs are currently in the format:
/var/spool/userprefs/
At 18:06 7/01/2005, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 1/6/2005, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >- The "rewrite_subject" and "subject_tag" configuration options were
> >deprecated and are now removed. Instead, using "rew
Hi All,
Just setting up SA 3.0.2 on a test server (to work towards upgrading our
main server that runs 2.64) and have discovered a change that might seem
innocent to the designers, but which is a PITA for us.
According to UPGRADE:
- The "rewrite_subject" and "subject_tag" configuration options w
> http://authortravis.tripod.com/
> http://www.geocities.com/author_travis/
>
> very interesting!
>
> --j.
>
One of the things mentioned in the article is that Spam Sent using
Send-Safe/Sobig as well as being delivered directly (using fake return
addresses etc) is *ALSO* sent deliberately to a
At 04:18 27/10/2004, Pierre Thomson wrote:
One of our relays got 8500 name-guessing spams yesterday, up from an
average of 2500 per day last week. So far today we have seen 6600, and
the day isn't half over. If our MTA weren't checking recipients against
our userlist, SA would be struggling to
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Luis Hernan Otegui wrote:
>>
>> > Well, a weekend update:
>> > Nothing has changed here. I removed EVERYTHING (except for local.cf)
>> > from /etc/mail/spamassassin, and still it chews as much memory as it
>> > could get. I limited t
13 matches
Mail list logo
