On 24/10/16 16:46, John Hardin wrote:
Paul:
I haven't looked at the plugin myself yet, but here's a suggestion:
have a mode where you can mark a RE as capturing a numeric value, and
the rule's hit value is the value that the RE captured. This would
(for example) let the AWL/TXREP mean be capt
On 24/10/16 16:46, John Hardin wrote:
Paul:
I haven't looked at the plugin myself yet, but here's a suggestion:
have a mode where you can mark a RE as capturing a numeric value, and
the rule's hit value is the value that the RE captured. This would
(for example) let the AWL/TXREP mean be captu
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, SimpleRezo wrote:
So, to the OP: try the tagmatch plugin to look at where _AWLMEAN_ is
(e.g.) <= -1 and _AWLCOUNT_ is greater than (e.g.) 10 and that may get you
what you want for a meta to use with the rules you want to control.
Thank you Paul & John, it looks like I will
065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123131.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
> I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
> adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
> SA *could* potentially have a
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
SA *could* potentially have a rule that checks the current historical
average
On 21/10/16 18:53, Paul Stead wrote:
tagmatch TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_LOWSCORE _TXREP_IP_MEAN_
/^\-[0-9]{2,}(?:\.[0-9]+)?$/
describe TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_LOWSCORE TxRep mean score quite low
scoreTAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE -0.1
Also - typo on score rulename!
--
Paul Stead
Systems Engineer
Zen Inte
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
A plugin I've developed could be handy here:
https://github.com/fmbla/spamassassin-tagmatch
tagmatch TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE _TXREP_IP_MEAN_
/^[1-9][0-9]+(?:\.[0-9]+)?$/
describe TAGMATCH_TXREP_IP_HIGHSCORE TXRep mean score quite large
scoreTAGMATCH
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
SA *could* potentially have a rule that checks the current historical
average that AWL uses...
I suggest you file a N
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Axb wrote:
On 10/21/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their contacts to the SA static whitelist.
Imo, this you'd normally do at MTA and/or glue level to bypass expensive SA
cont
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Kevin Golding wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:48:41 +0100, simplerezo wrote:
> very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for example, send me invoices as zi
On 10/21/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their contacts to the SA static whitelist.
Imo, this you'd normally do at MTA and/or glue level to bypass expensive
SA content scanning and save time & cycles.
On 20 Oct 2016, at 12:14, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Whitelisted senders get a _huge_ bonus (I think it's 100 points by
default, maybe customizable), so they won't be affected if you do it
right.
The blocker to that approach has already been stated: they have no
mechanism for users to add their con
On 10/21/2016 6:48 AM, simplerezo wrote:
it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
Absolutely.
very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for exam
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:48:41 +0100, simplerezo
wrote:
very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not
yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for example, send me invoices as zip
attachment (yes, there is some big com
On 20/10/16 17:44, Nicola Piazzi wrote:
Why not try my powerful plugin to reduce score of known users ?
Is based on people that answer to us and in my case, after 3 week of learning,
it HIT 70% of incoming messages that are absolutely ham
Looks really interesting. How it behaves in ipv6 environ
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:48:41 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> > it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false
> > negative.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.
>
> That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have
> not yet
- this requires my users to configure this, and most of them are already
finding IT too much complicated :)
--
Clement
SimpleRezo
http://www.simplerezo.com/
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123102.html
Sent
On 20.10.16 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known to not
send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false positive.
it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.
That's
exactly what I want to rely on
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/20/2016 12:55 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are
On 10/20/2016 12:55 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventi
On 10/20/2016 06:44 PM, Nicola Piazzi wrote:
Why not try my powerful plugin to reduce score of known users ? Is
based on people that answer to us and in my case, after 3 week of
learning, it HIT 70% of incoming messages that are absolutely ham
http://saplugin.16mb.com/
If you mean your OW plu
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
positive. That's exactly what I want
Bologna - Italia
Tel. +39 051.6079.293
Cell. +39 328.21.73.470
Web: www.gruppocomet.it
-Messaggio originale-
Da: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
Inviato: giovedì 20 ottobre 2016 18:36
A: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Oggetto: Re: Custom rule based on AWL score
On Thu, 20 Oct
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
positive. That's exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding
score for
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:34:04 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are
> known to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
> positive.
Which is why I pointed you towards a short paragraph that describes
what it actually do
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
> My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
> to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
> positive. That's exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding
> score for mail with "invoice" pretention and an
or very unknown users (or
spammers).
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123091.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:01:17 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> Because our users cannot easyly add all theirs contacts to whitelist.
>
> AWL is a great feature, and it's working well: so it would be nice
> for us to put some restrictives rules only active for "unknown" users
> (example: "invoices"
ext:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123089.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:55:29 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to write rule based on AWL score?
No
> We have some customs rules that we don't want to enable for
> "well-known" contacts...
Why not just whitelist them?
_AWL -0.01
But it does not seems to work...
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
32 matches
Mail list logo
