-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
> Hamie wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Martin Hepworth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>
>>>
Ben Hanson wrote:
> Shortly after the first of the year, I noticed the
>>>
Hamie wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Hepworth wrote:
Fred wrote:
Ben Hanson wrote:
Shortly after the first of the year, I noticed the percentage
of spam messages for our organization dropped consistently by
10-15%. Ben
I see between 83-85% spam. We use SARE rules +
Hamie wrote:
> How do you count 'unknown users'? Accurately I mean...
>
> Assuming you don't accept email in the first place if the user is
> unknown (Or you might I guess, but it seems like un-necessary
> processing to me) most spammers that I can see in our logs just keep
> re-trying again & agai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
>
>
> Fred wrote:
>
>> Ben Hanson wrote:
>>
>>> Shortly after the first of the year, I noticed the percentage
>>> of spam messages for our organization dropped consistently by
>>> 10-15%. Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> I see between 83-85% s
Fred wrote:
Ben Hanson wrote:
Shortly after the first of the year, I noticed the percentage of spam
messages for our organization dropped consistently by 10-15%.
Ben
I see between 83-85% spam.
We use SARE rules + my own home-brew rules + the new BLACK uribl lists +
unreleased SARE rules.
In the
Ben Hanson wrote:
> Shortly after the first of the year, I noticed the percentage of spam
> messages for our organization dropped consistently by 10-15%.
> Ben
I see between 83-85% spam.
We use SARE rules + my own home-brew rules + the new BLACK uribl lists +
unreleased SARE rules.
In the past 24
Shortly after the first of the year, I noticed the percentage of spam
messages for our organization dropped consistently by 10-15%. We had
been averaging 60 to 65% for the last year or so, ever since I began
with SA, right up until then, when it dropped consistently to just over
50%. I didn'
