Vivek Khera said:
> I'm not using Bayes since the filtering is site-wide at the smtp server
> level.
I use bayes sitewide for 600 users, and have processed a few million
messages.
Bayes sitewide works well, as the spam email is obviously unlike the
normal mail anyone receives.
I would enable baye
On Oct 6, 2004, at 6:56 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
- Are you using any additional rulesets from www.rulesemporium.com ?
If
not why not? :)
with so many to choose from, how do you decide which ones to use?
there needs to be some sort of user ranking and/or stats on these to
help make an informed
From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 2:27 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
With SA-2.63 I guest that 95% or even more spam was found not approx. 70-80%
and now very trival spams come through for example (I replac
ECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:06 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: more spam since upgrade
>
>
> > spamassassin --lint passes without any messages. Is that OK or not?
>
> That is good. Sounds like you have a clean set of config files.
>
> spamassassin --lint passes without any messages. Is that OK or not?
That is good. Sounds like you have a clean set of config files.
If the problem at this point is things leaking through (but you ARE seeing
scores, so you know things are basically working) than I would get some SARE
rules, plu
> I would like to add more rules, but not sure what to add that isn't
already
> being handled by SA? The www.rulesemporium.com does mention what SA has
> added though is still a little vague on what all has been integrated into
SA
> and with the timeouts not really wanting to place more on SA unti
spamassassin --lint passes without any messages. Is that OK or not?
Zsolt
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:56 PM
> To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin
> Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
>
>
We also use spamc/spamd.
Zsolt
> -Original Message-
> From: Tan, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:29 PM
> To: Darren Coleman; Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin
> Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
>
>
> We have gotten better a
forks as well as having zthe spamd's
die every 10 messages to reduce the memory utilization.
-Original Message-
From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:56 AM
To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin
Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
Is the last
Sorry, the attached file was empty, here it is again.
Zsolt
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:56 PM
> To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin
> Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
>
>
> Is the
I have attached the results of:
spamassassin -D --lint
Zsolt
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:56 PM
> To: Zsolt Koppany; Spamassassin
> Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
>
>
> Is the
On 10/6/04 5:56 AM, "Darren Coleman" wrote:
> I'm sorry to say but you must have some sort of configuration issue with
> your install, and I'd suggest to RTFM. I upgraded from 2.64 to 3.00 and
> have recently less untagged spam (as expected) as a result.
>
> - Are you using any additional rulese
At 07:19 AM 10/6/2004 +0200, Thomas Kinghorn wrote:
HI List
Just to add the results after uploading the spam to the server again.
$spamassassin -t -D < US\ Students\ email\ list.msg
So why then did the original receive only 3.1?
Look at the list of rules matched.. the number of rules hit in the or
October 2004 11:47
> To: Spamassassin
> Subject: RE: more spam since upgrade
>
> Hi,
>
> since I upgraded to 3.0.0 from 2.63 I get also much more spam and most
of
> them absolutely trivial for example Xiagra (I replaced 'V' with 'X'),
> Xenis
> (I re
somebody can help me to fix the problem.
Zsolt
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: more spam since upgrade
>
>
> Hi List.
>
> I have recently upgra
Tom
_
From: Thomas Kinghorn
Sent: 06 October 2004 07:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : more spam since
upgrade
Hi List.
I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0
Hi List.
I have recently upgraded toExim-4.42, Spamassassin 3.0 & sa-exim-4.1
The amount of spam slipping through since then has increased dramatically.
The scores seem a bit on the low side since upgrading.
Below is the message ID and I have attached the mail from which it
originates.
Any ide
17 matches
Mail list logo