Chris wrote:
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 9:52 am, ram wrote:
This is a very intelligently written scam mail
http://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/missed.txt
I set my servers to pretty aggressive custom rules , but I am not able
to catch this spam
Bayes has messed up agreed but even not counting bayes al
On Monday 04 June 2007 5:50 pm, John Rudd wrote:
> > [cf: 73]
> > 10 CLAMAV Clam AntiVirus detected a virus
> > 1.0 SAGREY Adds 1.0 to spam from first-time senders
>
> How come the ClamAV plugin doesn't report the virus found, in the
Content analysis details: (16.5 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server
[206.51.237.119 lis
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 9:52 am, ram wrote:
> This is a very intelligently written scam mail
>
> http://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/missed.txt
>
> I set my servers to pretty aggressive custom rules , but I am not able
> to catch this spam
>
> Bayes has messed up agreed but even not counting bayes almost n
On Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:15 PM ram wrote:
> bayes_99 = 7.0. Oops dont you get FPs on that.
Maybe once or twice a month. Other negative rules usually get the mails below 6
which is my spam threashold. Using MailScanner those mails are still delivered
to my Junk Mail Folder in Outlook. Everythi
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:09 +0200, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:53 PM ram wrote:
>
> > This is a very intelligently written scam mail
> >
> > http://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/missed.txt
> >
> > I set my servers to pretty aggressive custom rules , but I am not
> > able to c
On Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:53 PM ram wrote:
> This is a very intelligently written scam mail
>
> http://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/missed.txt
>
> I set my servers to pretty aggressive custom rules , but I am not
> able to catch this spam
>
> Bayes has messed up agreed but even not counting bayes al
This is a very intelligently written scam mail
http://ecm.netcore.co.in/tmp/missed.txt
I set my servers to pretty aggressive custom rules , but I am not able
to catch this spam
Bayes has messed up agreed but even not counting bayes almost no other
rules hit. Notwithstanding using custom spamsc
