On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:47:31 -0500 (EST), "Thomas Schulz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Well, some rules do have reduced scores, but there have been rules added
> that brings the total score back up. For anyone running a stock 2.64,
> 3.02 will catch more spam. We went from catching 70% of the
> Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
> > Another reason
> [snip]
> > I shall be sticking to 2.64 for the forsee-able future as 3.02 gives me
> > no advantage and quite a high likelihood of more spam dropping through
> > the system!
Well, some rules do have reduced scores, but there have been rules adde
Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Another reason
[snip]
> I shall be sticking to 2.64 for the forsee-able future as 3.02 gives me
> no advantage and quite a high likelihood of more spam dropping through
> the system!
Not specific to Martins reply, but thanks to all the responses regarding
continued u
At 06:42 AM 1/10/2005, Martin Hepworth wrote:
I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 and
found it's scores are way lower on all test emails than 2.64. (anywhere
upto 33% lower in limited tests).
I've managed to get most of my 2.64 rules etc over (along with bayes), bu
.org
> Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
>
> Another reason
>
> I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 and
> found it's scores are way lower on all test emails than 2.64. (anywhere
> upto 33% lower in limited tests).
>
> I'
for a while as well.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:
Monday, January 10, 2005 3:42 AM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
Another reason
I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 a
:42 AM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
Another reason
I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 and
found it's scores are way lower on all test emails than 2.64. (anywhere
upto 33% lower in limited tests).
I've
I will be sticking with 2.64 for a while as well.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:42 AM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
Another reason
I've been doing some testing ov
Another reason
I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 and
found it's scores are way lower on all test emails than 2.64. (anywhere
upto 33% lower in limited tests).
I've managed to get most of my 2.64 rules etc over (along with bayes),
but I'm nervous about switch
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 11:41:27AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> But wait, SA 2.x did not have SURBL support!
That is true for the default installation; however, I added SURBL to my
2.63 (or 2.64, don't remember) without headaches.
>From my experience, it is the best way to have a perl installation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bob Proulx said:
> > Running Debian stable is not a good reason to avoid upgrading
> > spamassassin to the best available version.
>
> Thus my conditional, "as long as it's working well." 2.64 is working for
> me, and VERY well: ~99% spam hits. I see no reason to upgrade
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:33:34 -0700, "Bob Proulx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >> Per Jessen wrote:
> > > >> > who's still on 2.64 with no exact plans to upgrade?
> >
> > Me too. I'm a Debian user, so I'm sticking with 2.64 as long as it's
> > working well. Unless 3.X
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> Per Jessen wrote:
> > >> > who's still on 2.64 with no exact plans to upgrade?
>
> Me too. I'm a Debian user, so I'm sticking with 2.64 as long as it's
> working well. Unless 3.X goes into Sarge, which I suspect is unlikely.
I am also a Debian user, running Debian
Whoops, forgot to cc the list. Sorry for the dupe, Per.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:54:32 +0100, "Per Jessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Per Jessen wrote:
> >> > Show of hands,
> >> > who's still on 2.64 with no exact plans to upgrade?
>
> Alright, so far I've seen 4-5, ma
Although we have upgraded on most of our systems I am not too enthused with
the idea of touching our main gateway. It works, so I don't want to break
it.
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd
Hosting, co-location & domains
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. +353 59 9137101
http:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:09 AM
> Cc: SpamAssassin list
> Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
>
> and me..no had time to upgrade thus far and 2.64 does a very nice job..
>
We have a half dozen or so customers where we have installed 2.6x and run it
for all our inhouse e-mail. Does a wonderful job with a minumum amount of care
and feeding, just move missed spam into a special folder for nightly bayesian
retraining and we're catching over 95% of SPAM.
Our goal is
PROTECTED]
(516) 379-0001 Office
(516) 480-1870 Mobile/Emergencies
(516) 908-4185 Fax
http://www.meitech.com/
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:09 AM
Cc: SpamAssassin list
Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
and me.
and me..no had time to upgrade thus far and 2.64 does a very nice job..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 00:54, Per Jessen wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Show of hands,
who's still on 2.64 w
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 00:54, Per Jessen wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Per Jessen wrote:
> >> > Show of hands,
> >> > who's still on 2.64 with no exact plans to upgrade?
>
> Alright, so far I've seen 4-5, maybe 6 people saying they intend to stick to
> 2.64 for the foreseeable future. Is th
> Alright, so far I've seen 4-5, maybe 6 people saying they
> intend to stick to
> 2.64 for the foreseeable future. Is that really all?
> I'm quite willing myself to put an effort in in maintaining
> 2.64, and I'll
> probably be doing it on a personal level anyway, but to work
> to produce act
21 matches
Mail list logo
