Henrique Fernandes wrote on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:27:18 -0300:
> In my case i use per user sql, that means that the user will not get any
> improvement that other reports in other accoutns have made ?
Correct.
Like User1 gets
> lot of lot emails, so his base learns a lot so the spamassassin get m
Are there any internal checks that disable Bayes autolearn when these
artificial whitelist rules match? I'd disabled these rules in versions
prior to 3.3.0 but, with all the discussion on the matter, I thought I'd
leave them in to see the "new and improved" version. Unfortunately, I'm
still
On 2/23/10 9:03 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Are there any internal checks that disable Bayes autolearn when these
artificial whitelist rules match? I'd disabled these rules in
versions prior to 3.3.0 but, with all the discussion on the matter, I
thought I'd leave them in to see the "new and imp
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 2/23/10 9:03 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
>>
>> Are there any internal checks that disable Bayes autolearn when these
>> artificial whitelist rules match? I'd disabled these rules in
>> versions prior to 3.3.0 but, with all the discussion on the matter, I
>> thought I'd l
On 2/23/2010 9:20 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm still seeing false positives and am concerned that
they are pushing the scores low enough to poison my Bayes database.
you can edit the tflags and add noautolearn
example:
72_active.cf:tflags RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIEDnet nice
On 2/23/10 9:28 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/23/10 9:03 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Are there any internal checks that disable Bayes autolearn when these
artificial whitelist rules match? I'd disabled these rules in
versions prior to 3.3.0 but, with all the disc
On 2/23/2010 9:35 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
why not just do tflags RULENAME nice net noautolearn
(oh.. and to find them, grep '^tflags.*RCVD_IN' *.cf
some interesting ones. not sure why they rate a net nice:
Grepping for 'autolearn' turns up the built-in whitelist and blacklist
rules.
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 2/23/10 9:28 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Michael Scheidell wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/23/10 9:03 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
>>>
Are there any internal checks that disable Bayes autolearn when these
artificial whitelist rules match? I'd disabled these rules in
>
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 09:28 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > you can edit the tflags and add noautolearn
> Are these settings cumulative? The man page doesn't specify.
Nope. tflags is of type CONF_TYPE_HASH_KEY_VALUE, so there's exactly one
tflags value per rule name.
is there a way to put sa-learn --spam inside of .qmail?
one more my emails getting spam'd big time...
i get nothin' but spam at this email
so i'd like to redirect all of that to sa-learn --spam as soon as it
arrives, and then get rid of it after its done processing
--
http://alexus.org/
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 14:08 -0500, alexus wrote:
> is there a way to put sa-learn --spam inside of .qmail?
> one more my emails getting spam'd big time...
> i get nothin' but spam at this email
> so i'd like to redirect all of that to sa-learn --spam as soon as it
> arrives, and then get rid of it
In an effort to reduce spam further we tried implementing SPF enforcement.
Within three days we turned it off. What we found was that:
- domain owners are allowing SPF records to be added to their zone files
without understanding the implications or that are just not correct
- domain owners a
Hello,
My company attempted to adopt SPF before I started working here. I recall it
was a recent event when I joined, and I looked into what went wrong (as I
became the mail administrator not long after). Basically the exact same
experience was encountered. Customers could not understand the syste
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Mike Hutchinson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My company attempted to adopt SPF before I started working here. I recall it
> was a recent event when I joined, and I looked into what went wrong (as I
> became the mail administrator not long after). Basically the exact same
>
Jeff Koch wrote:
>
> In an effort to reduce spam further we tried implementing SPF
> enforcement. Within three days we turned it off. What we found was that:
>
> - domain owners are allowing SPF records to be added to their zone
> files without understanding the implications or that are just not co
On 2/23/10 3:38 PM, Jeff Koch wrote:
since SpamAssassin doesn't block email (and actually, the scoring for
spf failures is pretty low), you must have munged something else up.
if you tried to do pre-queue SPF blocking, yep, go to wsj, yahoo, 'send
link to a friend' and you don't get email, it
On 2/23/2010 12:38 PM, Jeff Koch wrote:
In an effort to reduce spam further we tried implementing SPF
enforcement. Within three days we turned it off. What we found was that:
Our assessment is that SPF is a good idea but pretty much unworkable for
an ISP/host without a major education program
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:17 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy for your own
> domain, you can use it to reject spam pretending to be from your users.
>
Agreed. That's all I use it for. I installed SPF during a backscatter
storm, which immediately de
From: Martin Gregorie
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:04:07 +
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:17 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy for your own
> domain, you can use it to reject spam pretending to be from your users.
Agreed. That's
> Any other experiences? I love to hear.
1) Publishing SPF records at $DAYJOB coincided with a significant drop in
backscatter seen. I don't know whether it's a matter of spammers forging
fewer spam runs from SPFed domains, or other hosts being smart bout bounces,
or
2) whitelist_auth is wort
On 23/02/2010 7:51 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
> 2) whitelist_auth is worth its weight in platinum
Damn! I knew that should have been a subscription only feature! ;)
On 23-Feb-10 14:17, Bowie Bailey wrote:
SPF enforcement at the MTA is useless for the reasons you specified.
The only exception is if you have a strict SPF policy for your own
domain, you can use it to reject spam pretending to be from your users.
And that makes it worthwhile all by itself.
--
Jeff Koch wrote:
In an effort to reduce spam further we tried implementing SPF
enforcement. Within three days we turned it off. What we found was that:
- domain owners are allowing SPF records to be added to their zone
files without understanding the implications or that are just not corre
23 matches
Mail list logo
