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
16 matches
Mail list logo
