On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 6:52:43 AM, Ramprasad Padmanabhan wrote:
> We are running spamassassin 3.1 with Mailscanner. The SURBL checks are
> very efficient in catching spams ( without risk of FP's).
>Sometimes we get a lot of spam with URI's not listed in SURBL's ,
> probably because the
Chris Santerre a écrit :
I understand that. But his reason is because surbl isn't catching
everything. Using the two lists he will catch a lot more. And with URIBL he
can contribute domains missed and have them added in minutes. Helping the
entire community. No sense in him reinventing the whee
> -Original Message-
> From: Dhawal Doshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:34 PM
> To: Spamassassin
> Subject: Re: Managing a personal SURBL list
>
>
> Chris Santerre writes:
>
> >> -Original Message-
> &
Chris Santerre writes:
-Original Message-
From: Ramprasad A Padmanabhan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Managing a personal SURBL list
Hi all,
We are running spamassassin 3.1 with Mailscanner. The SURBL
checks are
very efficient in catching spams ( without risk of FP&#
> -Original Message-
> From: Ramprasad A Padmanabhan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: Spamassassin
> Subject: Managing a personal SURBL list
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are running spamassassin 3.1 with Mailscanner.
Ramprasad A Padmanabhan a écrit :
Hi all,
We are running spamassassin 3.1 with Mailscanner. The SURBL checks are
very efficient in catching spams ( without risk of FP's).
Sometimes we get a lot of spam with URI's not listed in SURBL's ,
probably because they are too specific to our domain
Hi all,
We are running spamassassin 3.1 with Mailscanner. The SURBL checks are
very efficient in catching spams ( without risk of FP's).
Sometimes we get a lot of spam with URI's not listed in SURBL's ,
probably because they are too specific to our domain / locality.
To make sure that these
