On 17 Nov 2006, Michael Alan Dorman outgrape:
> I lowered the score from 6 to 4.5, though, and it's continued to be
> effective, while letting those emails through.
6 is an insane score for *any* rule, IMNSHO.
--
`The main high-level difference between Emacs and (say) UNIX, Windows,
or BeOS...
Stuart Johnston wrote:
Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:56:21 -0800
Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:26 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
I've been running this for a few days now and am find
Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:56:21 -0800
Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:26 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
I've been running this for a few days now and am finding it to be
pretty effe
John Rudd wrote:
Stuart Johnston wrote:
Peter H. Lemieux wrote:
Billy Huddleston wrote:
Reverse DNS is a must. I'm surprised at how many people still haven't
got that yet in the IT world.. (Consultants mostly..)
It's not uncommon outside the industrialized world. Last few days I got
a few f
Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:56:21 -0800
Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:26 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
I've been running this for a few days now and am finding it to be
pretty effe
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:56:21 -0800
Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:26 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
>
> I've been running this for a few days now and am finding it to be
> pretty effective, especially
Stuart Johnston wrote:
Peter H. Lemieux wrote:
Billy Huddleston wrote:
Reverse DNS is a must. I'm surprised at how many people still haven't
got that yet in the IT world.. (Consultants mostly..)
It's not uncommon outside the industrialized world. Last few days I got
a few false positives for
Peter H. Lemieux wrote:
Billy Huddleston wrote:
Reverse DNS is a must. I'm surprised at how many people still haven't
got that yet in the IT world.. (Consultants mostly..)
It's not uncommon outside the industrialized world. Last few days I got
a few false positives for a client that was corre
Billy Huddleston wrote:
Reverse DNS is a must. I'm surprised at how many people still haven't
got that yet in the IT world.. (Consultants mostly..)
It's not uncommon outside the industrialized world. Last few days I got
a few false positives for a client that was corresponding with folks in
th
"Derek Harding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "SpamAssassin Users"
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: RelayChecker 0.3
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:26 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamass
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:26 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
I've been running this for a few days now and am finding it to be pretty
effective, especially against the bots that are producing all the image
spam.
Currently it's running about 87
Dylan,
> Even after setting the reduced_dns option to 1 the load on the server
> stays high. I re-enabled AWL and my load stays low as long as I don't
> enable the RelayChecker. I get the following in the log:::
>
> Nov 13 15:51:23 p1-lk-mxfilter.power1.com /usr/sbin/amavisd[30169]:
> (30169-01) e
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:21 PM
> To: John Rudd
> Cc: Dylan Bouterse; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RelayChecker 0.3 (more overhead?)
>
> John Rudd wrote:
Dylan Bouterse wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:54 PM
To: Dylan Bouterse; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: RelayChecker 0.3 (more overhead?)
Dylan Bouterse wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd
John Rudd wrote:
Dylan Bouterse wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:26 PM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: RelayChecker 0.3
New version of RelayChecker.
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
Chan
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:54 PM
> To: Dylan Bouterse; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RelayChecker 0.3 (more overhead?)
>
> Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> >
> >> -O
Dylan Bouterse wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:26 PM
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: RelayChecker 0.3
New version of RelayChecker.
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
Changes:
- It's now
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:26 PM
> To: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: RelayChecker 0.3
>
>
> New version of RelayChecker.
>
> http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
>
> Changes:
>
> - It's no
You're right. Not necessary. Must have been something I had intended
to use and use the SA debug output instead.
I've taken it out of my sources. Wont be in the next release.
Thanks!
Steven Manross wrote:
Am I missing something or is the use of Sys::Syslog not necessary?
I can't find
The Doctor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 06:06:53PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:26:10PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
New version of RelayChecker.
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
Changes:
- It's now in a single tar file. Put
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 06:06:53PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> The Doctor wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:26:10PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> >>New version of RelayChecker.
> >>
> >>http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
> >>
> >>Changes:
> >>
> >>- It's now in a single tar f
Am I missing something or is the use of Sys::Syslog not necessary?
I can't find a compatible Win32 build.. Though I didn't look all that
hard for it, as the module seems to work correctly without it (from my
limited testing).
Thanks,
Steven
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto
The Doctor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:26:10PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
New version of RelayChecker.
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
Changes:
- It's now in a single tar file. Put the tar file into your plugin
directory, expand it, and all should be good. T
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:26:10PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
>
> New version of RelayChecker.
>
> http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/spamassassin/RelayChecker.tar
>
> Changes:
>
> - It's now in a single tar file. Put the tar file into your plugin
> directory, expand it, and all should be good. The
24 matches
Mail list logo
