> >> Alex wrote:
> >> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> > it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> > and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
> > On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Don't use UCEPROTECT for catc
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
>> > it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
>> > and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Don't use UC
> Alex wrote:
> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> > works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> > wondered if I was doing something wrong.
On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
> Don't use UCEPROTECT for catching, only for scoring.
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> But yes, some other RBL's have also unclear rules - I admit.
> Yet, the delisting is kinda different isn't it?
Yes, but that has not been a problem for me so far. As far as I can
tell, the automatic process also works very well.
>> - which is why I don't block with UCEPRO
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 10:31 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> > 1. Listing
> Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
> rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
First of all, you have (for example on spam
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> 1. Listing
Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=3
I too _would_ like to know how the
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 09:12 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
>> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
>> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
>> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>> >
>> > Yes, UCEPROTE
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> >> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> >> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big sc
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Alex pisze:
>> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
>> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
>> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam.
A scam?? You'll have
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Don't use UCEPROTECT for catching, only for scoring.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Alex wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how it works
here. What's a more reasona
Alex pisze:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam. Only thing it seems to care
about is the money for 'expr
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch a
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 10:53 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> > of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> > lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
>
> Alex,
>
> we use all 3 and adjust
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how
> it works here. What's a more reaso
16 matches
Mail list logo
