On 5-Aug-2009, at 02:15, a...@exys.org wrote:
The point is that scores below 2 are never spam,
Er... that's certainly not true.
--
*** AgentSmith sets mode: +m
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:15:00 +0200
a...@exys.org wrote:
> 2 to 5 is the sweetspot. That message in question actually proved it
> is working, since the URIBL hits came later. Then it scores >10 so
> it gets rejected.
I noticed earlier that you were greylisting for only 60s; that seems
like a fa
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 22:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> turning off AWL and autolearn (optionally only when run at SMTP time) would
> help you here. Although using such setup you loose much of advantages (like
> AWL ;-) and especially personalising...
>
There are cases where AWL is a m
>> On 05.08.09 00:31, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> If, for some (very) odd reason you run greylisting after SA then *of
>>> course* your host has (a) seen the mail and (b) passed it through SA.
>>> How else can the mail get to the greylister?
>>>
>>> Would you care to explain why you put a greylister
a...@exys.org wrote:
> exactly. The point is that scores below 2 are never spam, so i avoid
> greylisting. Thats my whitelist (you usually need for greylisting) at
> the same time, since i whitelist some hosts in SA.
Interesting set-up, although I don't think it would be suitable for a
high-volum
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.08.09 00:31, Martin Gregorie wrote:
If, for some (very) odd reason you run greylisting after SA then *of
course* your host has (a) seen the mail and (b) passed it through SA.
How else can the mail get to the greylister?
Would you care to explain why you pu
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:37 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
> > >> I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
> > >> it hit?
> > >>
>
> > in later mail you mention that you run SA before g
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:37 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
> >> I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
> >> it hit?
> >>
> in later mail you mention that you run SA before greylisting.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obv
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
> See the below message parts
> (the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
> Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
> while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
> what AWL is doing here.
> I have obviously never received an
Please do not quote me out of context.
Sorry. didnt find an apropriate way to respond to two statements in one
sentence.
Again, the greylisting prior to receiving this spam is not the reason.
SA, or more specifically AWL, does not know about that.
It is. I forgot to mention i run SA pri
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:18 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
> > (missing in your paste)
>
> the received header was not missing. just stripped.
Please do not quote me out of context. I said "From: header address
(missing in your paste)". Inserted in the quote below where you ripped
it out.
> > Thi
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:18 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
> > This assumption is wrong. You did receive a message from the From:
> > header address and the same originating
> > net-block in the past.
> >
> >
> Should I disable AWL, or can i
> unlearn it?
Apparently you previously (maybe not t
> (missing in your paste)
the received header was not missing. just stripped.
Received: from host231.dhms-domainmanagement.net ([91.199.51.231])
This assumption is wrong. You did receive a message from the From:
header address and the same originating
net-block in the past.
True I did
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:09 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
> See the below message parts
> (the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
> Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
> while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
> what AWL is doing here.
> I have obviously n
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit?
Ret
Title: RE: AWL confusion.. (drinking game)
I thought these two had made it into the Wiki :)
Its SATALK comedy gold!
>-Original Message-
>From: guenther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:52 PM
>To: Craig Jackson
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apac
Matt Kettler wrote:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
drinking game?
For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
the days mail for spamas
Matt Kettler skrev:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
drinking game?
For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
the days mail for spamas
Anders Norrbring wrote:
>
>> *sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
>> drinking game?
>>
>> For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
>> with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
>> the days mail for spamassass
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
drinking game?
For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
the days mail for spamassassin-users.
3 drinks - Poster believes th
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:51:14PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I just mess my
>> mind up?
>>
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
>
>
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssass
Anders Norrbring wrote:
I just got rediciously confused..
I sent a mail to myself, testing some stuff, and of course it's in the
same domain and network as the server.
I got:
9.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I just
Anders Norrbring wrote:
I just got rediciously confused..
I sent a mail to myself, testing some stuff, and of course it's in the
same domain and network as the server.
I got:
9.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I jus
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:51:14PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
> Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I just mess my
> mind up?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
QOTD:
Talk about willing people... over half of them are
I just got rediciously confused..
I sent a mail to myself, testing some stuff, and of course it's in the
same domain and network as the server.
I got:
9.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I just mess my
mind up?
--
A
I agree it's a very misleading term.
The easiest and most appropriate term I've heard is "historical
averaging".
-Original Message-
From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 7:51 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.
- Original Message -
From: "Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto
white-list?
> >> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral
zero)
> >> if
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
>> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
>> if it's in a WL?
>
> You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it e
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
> if it's in a WL?
You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains
Me new email host is using SA 3.0.1 and I have been watching what gets
caught and what doesn't so I can do some user_prefs tuning if necessary.
But I don't understand what is going on with this AWL stuff. The host
service has it turned on and I get a non-spam message with this score
report in i
31 matches
Mail list logo
