On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 10:59 -0400, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> > The current scores are actually:
> > RCVD_IN_PBL 0 3.558 0 3.335
Latest 3.3.x scores.
> I show these current scores which are much lower than what you have. It
> this because of the spamassassin version we use or maybe I did not use
> s
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:59:24 -0400
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>
>> On 6/24/10 3:51 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>
>>> The danger comes when people use the PBL incorrectly and deep parse
>>> all headers which *will* lead to copious FPs.
>>>
>>> Either way, I'd have no hesitation bl
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 03:59:24PM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > that is why, as Ned said, you have to only use it on the LAST
> > UNTRUSTED ip. (or first received header).
On 25.06.10 13:27, Henrik K wrote:
> What you are referring to is the EXTERNAL border (MX-border). Trusted may
> not
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 03:59:24PM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> that is why, as Ned said, you have to only use it on the LAST
> UNTRUSTED ip. (or first received header).
What you are referring to is the EXTERNAL border (MX-border). Trusted may
not be the same on some configurations (big IS
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:59:24 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 6/24/10 3:51 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> > The danger comes when people use the PBL incorrectly and deep parse
> > all headers which *will* lead to copious FPs.
> >
> > Either way, I'd have no hesitation blocking outright on PBL or
> >
On 6/24/10 3:51 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
The danger comes when people use the PBL incorrectly and deep parse
all headers which *will* lead to copious FPs.
Either way, I'd have no hesitation blocking outright on PBL or scoring
very highly in SA.
since the PBL also lists 'dialups'. and if a dial
On 2010-06-24 21:51, Ned Slider wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/24/10 1:18 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Yet spamassassin scores it with a .9. I have been reluctant to
block and
this is compounded by spamassassin scoring it low as if it weren't as
accurate as you state.
again, look at
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/24/10 1:18 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Yet spamassassin scores it with a .9. I have been reluctant to
block and
this is compounded by spamassassin scoring it low as if it weren't as
accurate as you state.
again, look at the circumstances. the SA scoring migh
On 6/24/10 1:18 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Yet spamassassin scores it with a .9. I have been reluctant to block and
this is compounded by spamassassin scoring it low as if it weren't as
accurate as you state.
again, look at the circumstances. the SA scoring might be crippled due
to the
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 6/24/10 12:07 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
>> Anyone receiving these? It is either a borked spam script or they are
>> probing. They come in with different headers and different body each
>> time so I am not sure how to mark or block them. Any suggestions would
>> be appr
On 6/24/10 12:07 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Anyone receiving these? It is either a borked spam script or they are
probing. They come in with different headers and different body each
time so I am not sure how to mark or block them. Any suggestions would
be appreciated.
http://pastebin.com/kQJ0SPt
11 matches
Mail list logo
