On 19-Mar-2009, at 17:15, mouss wrote:
LuKreme a écrit :
On 18-Mar-2009, at 21:34, Jorge Cardona wrote:
¿Qué tiene que ver Software Libre con educación?
Esta lista es solamente ingles.
it has nothing to do with "esta" nor "lista". That was spam. check the
list of recipients. just because i
On 19-Mar-2009, at 15:18, James Wilkinson wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
No reason it shouldn't be. I'd suggest something like a rawbody
match on
/]/i meta'd with HTML_MESSAGE should be worth a few
(dozen)
points.
This would seem to FP on Microsoft HTML generated by certain
versions of
Word.
My Spam assassin is run from /etc/mail/mimedefang-filter via the perl
module.
Initialized using:
spam_assassin_init()->compile_now(1) if
defined(spam_assassin_init());
And checked with:
my($hits, $req, $names, $report) = spam_assassin_check();
When running sa-update, do I need
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 14:56 -0400, Bryan Lee wrote:
> My Spam assassin is run from /etc/mail/mimedefang-filter via the perl
> module.
> When running sa-update, do I need to run anything to make sure new rules
> get picked up? I.e. Do I need to restart mimedefang or somehow call
> the spam_assass
Can someone point me to what I can do to my Spam Assassin config for a
situation like the following?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[AWL=-1.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
URIBL_BLACK=1.955, URIBL_GREY=0.25]
That is, a positive score
Hoover Chan wrote:
Can someone point me to what I can do to my Spam Assassin config for a
situation like the following?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[AWL=-1.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
URIBL_BLACK=1.955, URIBL_GREY=0.25]
That
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was attached
to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me curious about the
whole thing where any positive spam score is set as the threshold but seeing
junk mail coming in with negative scores.
Thanks.
--
From: Hoover Chan
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this
was attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got
me curious about the whole thing where any positive spam score is
set as the th
Hoover Chan wrote:
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was attached
to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me curious about the
whole thing where any positive spam score is set as the threshold but seeing
junk mail coming in with negative scores.
From: Jesse Stroik
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:14:39 -0500
Hoover Chan wrote:
> The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was
attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me curious
about the whole thing where any positive spam score is s
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Jesse Stroik wrote:
Hoover Chan wrote:
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was
attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me
curious about the whole thing where any positive spam score is set as
the threshold but seein
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:14:39 -0500
Jesse Stroik wrote:
> It's a matter of taste and what you believe makes sense, but I don't
> consider bayes to be all that accurate (since there are methods for
> defeating bayes, poisoning bayes, etc). As such, I don't allow Bayes
> to assign negative scores
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
> tests=[AWL=-1.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
> URIBL_BLACK=1.955, URIBL_GREY=0.25]
^
Other than what's already been mentioned about Bayes and AWL...
Either (a) there are
13 matches
Mail list logo
