On 03/09/2017 06:29 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/9/2017 12:26 PM, Axb wrote:
On 03/09/2017 06:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/9/2017 12:04 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
Compared to RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, which I think Axb manually adjusted down
to 0.5 back in September, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB
On 3/9/2017 12:26 PM, Axb wrote:
On 03/09/2017 06:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/9/2017 12:04 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
Compared to RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, which I think Axb manually adjusted
down
to 0.5 back in September, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB hits about a tenth as much,
atm there's a t
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, which I think Axb manually adjusted down
to 0.5 back in September, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB hits about a tenth as much,
but with a hit similarly being about a 25% risk of being a FP. I could
write some local rules to try separating out the lastexternal hits and
see if it eliminates some
adjusted down
to 0.5 back in September, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB hits about a tenth as much,
but with a hit similarly being about a 25% risk of being a FP. I could
write some local rules to try separating out the lastexternal hits and
see if it eliminates some FPs, but I doubt it will. There was some
other
orking
much better than the previous score of 3.253.
Compared to RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, which I think Axb manually adjusted down
to 0.5 back in September, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB hits about a tenth as much,
but with a hit similarly being about a 25% risk of being a FP. I could
write some local rules to try
On 3/9/2017 8:22 AM, Cedric Knight wrote:
I've reduced the score on my installation to 0.5. Would this kind of
thing be prevented by more people contributing to the mass checks? Or
could it be adjusted downwards as Alex suggested?
I don't know if it's a floating rule but it sounds like it nee
On 11/09/16 22:10, Alex wrote:
>> COMMIT/trunk/rules/50_scores.cf
>>
>> Committed revision 1760066.
>>
>> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 0 0.5 0 0.5
>>
>> should show up after next SA update
>
> Has RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB been considered for adjustment as we
Paolo Cravero as2594 wrote:
Same goes for who asks to unblock certain messages. They are told they
can decide to have spam pass through (periodical automatic quarantine
unlock, actually). In less than a day they usually beg to restore their
antispam protection (and who cares for that job-unrelat
Ronan McGlue wrote:
> why is the weighting for RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB scores 0 0 0 then 0.007...
>
> I know there is probably a good reason for this low a score but could
> someone explain it to me please as I have one very irate user who
> likes nothing better than to pick holes
Craig McLean wrote:
Or just switch off SA scanning of that customer's mail for a day or so,
that should give them an idea of how effective it is... ;-)
I am convinced more and more every day that we should turn off SA once
every two weeks or so for "maintainance" reasons. Then users will stop
com
On Thu, April 14, 2005 12:04 pm, Gray, Richard said:
[snip]
> When we've had to deal with this, I tend to write to write a short email
> demonstrating the effectiveness of the tool (produce some statistics on
> spam stopped) and point out that there is no way to achieve a 100%
> efficiency.
Or ju
spam or he accepts that he
loses the ham.
I hope that helps,
R
-Original Message-
From: Ronan McGlue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 April 2005 11:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB
why is the weighting for RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB scores 0 0 0 then 0.007...
I know there is
ts that he gets the spam or he accepts that he
loses the ham.
I hope that helps,
R
> -Original Message-
> From: Ronan McGlue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 April 2005 11:36
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB
>
> why is the weighting for RCVD
why is the weighting for RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB scores 0 0 0 then 0.007...
I know there is probably a good reason for this low a score but could
someone explain it to me please as I have one very irate user who likes
nothing better than to pick holes in spamassassin, which in turn is a
headache for
14 matches
Mail list logo
