to maintain your sanity and your systems stability, unless your
running a bone stock system. That or you could build the rpm from the
tarball, as suggested earlier in another post.
Regards,
Jon
because I know that some users puts HAM in their ReportSpam folder
Best Regards - Jon
bayes_toks.expire26661
bayes_toks.expire31998
bayes_toks.expire4343
Best regards - Jon
I highly recommend it. But again, not the low MX. You'd be playing
with fire there.
--
Jon Trulson | A828 C19D A087 F20B DFED
mailto:j...@radscan.com | 67C9 6F32 31AB E647 B345
"What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed
w
) examined).
ham messages:
Learned from 2667 message(s) (3288 message(s) examined).
But nham and nspam is still well under 200 each. What can I do?
Thanks,
Jon
use of
this?
Thanks,
Shane
--
Shane Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Network/System Consultant
GPG KeyID: 777CBF3F
Key fingerprint: 254F B2AC 9939 C715 278C DA95 4109 9F69 777C BF3F
Listening to: The Courtship of Birdy Numnum - The
Parapalegic-Homoerotic Episode
--
Shane Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTE
processes instead of as a daemon. The load time was never terribly
bad, and they certainly can't leak.
See my response in a previous thread on this problem. For kicks,
try --max-conn-per-child=1 to spamd see and see if your machine will last
longer :) Mine did...
--
Jon Trulson
ing memory... Seems
pretty much strange to me...
Same thing I saw, except in my case, it was 320MB. Once a child
had it, it never let it go until terminated (or hit the default 200
connection limit).
[...]
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC
mewhat more beefy host.
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:09:50 -0500, Doug Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had this problem till I set the max per child option to = 1
This caused spamd to kill the process used to scan every msg once it's
done.
Not the best answer I know but it keeps it in check
ipped through
since I enabled it Sunday.
OTOH, SA 3.0 seems to be doing a *much* better job at catching
spam. Big improvement over 2.6x, so I'll keep it :)
Thanks,
Michael
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radsca
even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes.
Michael
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes.
Is it possible to try and find the
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and
on a whitelist
or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
Better question.
Of all the folks seeing memory issues, are you using ok_languages in
your config somewhere? If not, please speak up as well.
I am using 'ok_locales en'.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A
er at catching spam than 2.63 was (out of the box).
With 2.64, we avaraged about 10 or so spams below threshold (5.0).
Now it's about 1, and some days, none :) Worth the upgrade IMO.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP ke
that do not get through 2.6x are
generally (a) those that match BAYES_99, which by itself in the
default configuration is no longer a large enough score to make me
happy, or
True. Some spam we get is soley BAYES_99. I've bumped it back up
to 5.2 (like in 2.6x).
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMA
no custom rulesets with v3 currently. At least on my
system, the memory issues had nothing to do with a custom ruleset or 3.
The --max-children=1 flag to spamd has 'solved' the issue for
me... Average child size is around 19-20MB, until 'the event' happens, at
which point it j
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The --max-children=1 flag to spamd has 'solved' the issue for me...
Sorry, that should be '--max-conn-per-child=1'.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:
pletely generic redhat fc2 box).
Are those my only real options?
Thanks,
Jon Dossey
DELTA HEALTH GROUP
__
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may
ssible. I
know I could separate the spamd service out on another machine, then
have both gateways query that, but then that becomes the single point of
failure for all spam filtering.
Any thoughts?
.jon
__
"
ks again for your help everyone. I appreciate all your suggestions.
> Have fun!
>
> Kris
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Dossey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:59 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Spamassassin on a
Setup: Redhat FC2, sendmail 8.13.1, spamassassin 3.0.1, and
spamass-milter 0.2.0
Error: Nov 23 11:21:45 hostname spamd[3966]: Can't unlink
/var/run/spamd.socket: Permission denied
Here's the info on the socket:
srw-rw-rw- 1 spamd root0 Nov 23 11:21 spamd.socket
And worth noting:
spam
:
"Subject: test1
Test1
http://www.surbl-org-permanent-test-point.com/";
(obviously I'm testing SURBL)
Any idea why its taking so long? Running an older version of
spamassassin on a 233mhz PII scans take only about 5-6 seconds
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 09:47:02AM -0600, Jon Dossey wrote:
> > Dec 6 09:25:30 dhgsrv17 spamd[1781]: clean message (0.1/5.0) for
> > root:500 in 15.2 seconds, 1531 bytes.
> >
> > Any idea why its taking so long? Running an older version of
> > spamassassi
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:11:26AM -0600, Jon Dossey wrote:
> > Machine is a nameserver (bind 9.3.0), load average 0.00 0.00 0.00
(test
> > machine, not in production). I tried changing skip_rbl_checks to 1,
and
> > testing again. Took 15.1 seconds to process.
&
Steve Sobel wrote:
On the minus side, no matter how many times I send some messages to my
"Learn Spam" folder (where it's processed and emptied nightly), certain
messages I get many times a day still are not marked as spam. Mostly
rolex watch spams, but there are others as well.
have you trained a
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:27:29AM -0600, Jon Dossey wrote:
> > Wow! 0.1 seconds, now that's fast!
> >
> > Then I saw this: "tests=none"
> >
> > I guess it would be fast if it doesn't have to really *do* anything!
>
> tests=none jus
f itself. Have
you checked your firewall rules, and your named.conf to see if you've
allowed-query 127.0.0.1 in your options statement? Have you tried
resolving anything locally, while ssh'ed into the box? What about using
another IP address bound to a NIC on the machine, that named is
c
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:27:29AM -0600, Jon Dossey wrote:
> > > Wow! 0.1 seconds, now that's fast!
> > >
> > > Then I saw this: "tests=none"
> > >
> > > I guess it would be fast if it doesn't have to really *do*
anythi
idn't resolve
the problem.
Does anyone have any idea why it fails when attempting to resolve off
the local nameserver? The resolver works perfectly otherwise.
Any input appreciated.
Thanks,
.jon
__
"The information
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 5:01:32 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 2:43:48 PM, Jon Dossey wrote:
>
> >> As per Matthew Romanek's ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) recommendations, I
> >> re-pointed my resolver to a different nameserver (fr
this:
DROPPRIVS=yes
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*
/var/tmp/spam
--
Jon Kvebaek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobil: +47 992 19 829
Unanimiter et constanter Oslo
Perhaps Net::DNS gives up too quickly?
Kenneth -
A lot of people are having problems resolving using the loopback address
(127.0.0.1), try using an IP address that is bound to one of your NIC's.
I added an ACL to allow
people (myself included) running SA 3.0 without any problem
what-so-ever, so me thinks you've munged up your configuration somehow.
.jon
__
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi Rakesh,
Well i cannot help much in your problem apart from saying what Jeff
had said earlier, that you need to upgrade some of your Perl modules.
the problem is that I run on a Debian 3.0 system that has older Perl
modules. :-)
you should upgrade Net::DNS. it won't
Jerry Bell wrote:
Here's a snippet from the article:
"The short answer is that no one submitted it, but of course there's more
to it than that. This year we reached out to the SpamAssassin community
and asked them to participate. Although a few well-meaning souls
volunteered to be the contacts for
Chuck Campbell wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 12:56:43PM -0600, Steve Bondy wrote:
For example, the default score in 2.6.x for BAYES_90 is either 2.454 or
2.101. If that's the only rule you hit, and your threshold is above
those numbers, it will come through.
But what if you repeatedly learn the m
Paul Grenda wrote:
I recently upgraded to SA3.0.1 but I still only seem to be able to catch
between 55% and 70% of spam. I read a thread started by Florian Effenberger
and there was advice that he should upgrade Net::DNS. So I ran
spamassassin -D --lint and it said debug: Net::DNS version is 0.26
Loren Wilton wrote:
BTW, (slightly off topic), I also hate the way that clicking on a link
within Outlook will take over an existing MS Explorer window when I'd rather
it open a new window and not interfere. Is there a way to change the default
behavior for this?
In OE you can shift-click to get a
Geoff Soper wrote:
I run SpamAssassin on my web host's machine. I install it in my directory
using:
perl Makefile.PL PREFIX=$HOME
make
make install
My problem is that my host doesn't have the Digest::SHA1 module installed.
I don't have the ability to install Perl modules centrally but I can
install
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL
hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL
for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have a feeling if I clean
up my
results a bit, that number would be even hig
hted
less
> > than 5. I want to change that.
> >
> >
> Couldn't you just increase the scores to 100?
Exactly. Then implicitly reject anything with a spam score > 100.
.jon
__
"The information t
Christopher John Shaker wrote:
In my useage, SpamAssassin 3.0.2 works *way* better than the 2.XX
versions of
SpamAssassin. I've been training my Baysian filters, and they work
really well now.
SA 3.0.2 works so well that I've deleted most of my apx 400 local rules,
which plugged
leaks through S
kalin mintchev wrote:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.6 required=3.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24,
DRUGS_ERECTILE,DRUGS_PAIN,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD,MIME_BASE64_TEXT
autolearn=no version=3.0.2
note that the ones that were detected scored 4 - lower than the actual
default of the recomended 5
i
Jason Novak wrote:
I'm currently running spamassassin 3.0.2 and everything seems to be
running well. sa-learn works correctly when I want to learn spam and
ham messages. My only question is when it comes to looking at the data
when I run 'sa-learn --dump all' I get the following example.
[snip
*** Before acting on this email or opening any attachment you are advised to
read the disclaimer at the end of this email ***
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ResendingMailWithHeaders?action=highlight&value=groupwise
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ResendingMailWithHeaders?action=highligh
_CAPS,
X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH,X_PRIORITY_HIGH autolearn=no
version=3.0.1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on
dhgsrv17.deltahealthgroup.com
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2005 13:54:46.0084 (UTC)
FILETIME=[648D6840:01C51F2F]
Thanks,
.jon
being tagged. The
only thing that seemed different about it was that it was flagged as
"Urgent".
Thanks,
.jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Evan Platt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why w
> At 11:25 AM 3/2/2005, Jon Dossey wrote:
> >I apologize, I was in a rush. System is redhat fc2, sendmail 8.13.1,
> >spamassassin 3.0.1 and spamass-milter 0.2.0 (updated for SA 3.0,
haven't
> >switched to 0.3.0 yet).
> >
> >Here's (most
configuration is parsed by spamassassin, god only knows how a mistake
like that would end up assigned to some int somewhere.
I'll take it out and see how it goes. Thanks guys.
.jon
all kinds of options like From =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
And variations of the above but nothing is working
If I change that to rawbody it works, but the reason I am trying to use the
>From field so that it will not trigger off of the To field. Any help would
be greatly appreciated
Jon McGreevy
PROTECTED]/I
Alternatively
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is generally not considered a good idea tho, because these headers
are very easy to forge. (viruses tend to masquarade as
internal->internal mail)
R
-Original Message-
From: Jon McGreevy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
IP won't really work since most people webmail from all over
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem with a Rule
Jon
doing it this way
:51 AM 3/3/2005, Jon McGreevy wrote:
>I am running SA 2.64 and trying to create a rule so that peoples email
>inside the organization will not be marked as spam
>
>I am trying to use the header option and it is not working
>
>Here is what I have so far
>
> From =~ /[
r-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on
I throw my self at the mery of the SA mailing list :)
Thanks,
.jon
ow my self at the mery of the SA mailing list :)
Ok, I changed the required_hits to required_score (even though it
shouldn't matter) and its still not tagging the messages. What am I
missing? Is there any other place this could be defined (or not
defined)?
Thanks,
.jon
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:04 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Spamassassin Tagging
>
> Jon Dossey wrote:
> >> Still having problems.
> >>
> &g
> Jon Dossey wrote:
> >> -Original Message-----
> >> Jon Dossey wrote:
> >>>> Still having problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Redhat FC2, sendmail 8.31.1, spamassassin 3.0.1 (with
> >>>> spamass-milter).
> >>>&
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Jon Dossey wrote:
>
> > > Sounds like a spamass-milter bug... have you checked their site:
> > > http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?group=spamass-milt
> >
> > I don't think it's a milter problem, because the messages are b
I made a few custom rules for SA
I did a rawbody test for /jpg/i
Also another rawbody for /gif/i
And then gave these two point values just above the value of spam like I
have mine set at 8 and gave each of these a 30. The emails that I have been
getting in were just a weblink and some text. My
--
Note that I've scored up RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET to 5.0.
I know that the other local scores work OK becuause I can sent GTUBE in for a
pretty large score
Cheers
Jon Gerdes
*** Disclaimer ***
The information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence may
be subj
+ -1.096 + 0.703 = 4.607 which is exactly what I got!!!
Gosh it's all working just as it says on the tin 8)
Very sorry for wasting your time.
Cheers
Jon Gerdes
>>> "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/08/05 11:57am >>>
BAYES_40 will slightly l
t; problems went away. It's chuffing along happily now.
>
> Memory leak, maybe?
What kind of hardware? Are you scanning zips? I had to just start
blocking zip attachments all together until these virii settle down a
bit.
.jon
> From: Thomas Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: spamassassin-users
> Subject: RE: [SOLVED] Re: Suddenly load average of 15-18???
>
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 11:46 -0500, Jon Dossey wrote:
> > > From: Thomas Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent
they are being trapped...
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
t sort of problem?
Yours faithfully,
Valery
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
fault setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA 3.0.1, RedHat
FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since I updated SA,
the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of my processing time
was spent waiting for DNS responses.
Any input into my situation would be appreciated. I'd love to be able to get
down to 2-3 seconds, basically cutting my processing time in half!
.jon
Can anyone recommend a good logfile analyzer for Spamassassin?
ange server on the LAN.
Don't forget to re-make the mailertable file:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mail]# makemap hash mailertable.db < mailertable
Hopefully I understood your problem correctly :)
Thanks,
Jon Dossey
DELTA HEALTH GROUP
>
Or, if you wanted to watch, just skip the -D (daemonize option). It'll
just sit in the foreground and you can watch it do its thing.
.jon
olver. This gives SA a lot of control over queries, but doesn't
take
> > advantage of things like /etc/hosts, and only uses your primary DNS.
>
> ahhh ok
> anyway i can hack it??
> *goes off to read CPAN*...
You'd "hack" SA instead of just installing bind, and letting it just
cache the response?
Talk about wagging the dog ...
.jon
out into a useable format that
sa-learn will understand? Saving messages out of Outlook (for me
anyway) into a txt file removes all the internet headers.
So how else do you handle getting your messages back out of
exchange/outlook, and sa-learn'ed?
.jon
> > Jon Dossey wrote:
> > > I'm sure a lot of us have a similar setup, linux/bsd mx gateways
> > > (running SA) relaying mail to Exchange, and Outlook clients. I'm
just
> > > curious how everyone handles learning?
> > >
> > > It seem
A eventually before
entering our internal mail system. Works great.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
would speculate that was the reason your messages started tagging as spam.
One such list I remember was ordb.org.
Yes, ordb. Knew it was something like that. It may be true that
they posted something to a list - unfortunately, I was not
subscribed.
Nonetheless, we won't do that ag
yway, it is unwise to pin pass/fail on RBL's. They can be
wrong, or go away.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
there any chance we can get a moderator on this, please? This is clearly not
a SA topic and I'm weary of insults, flames, and advertisements from Marc.
FWIW, +1
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
2007/9/12, Jon Trulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:07 PM Marc Perkel wrote:
The details are a little to complex for this forum ...
OK - had quite a few trolls here wh
ure!) spam.
I definitely love my spamassassins :)
--
Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson
against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include
o the count there.
Has anyone done anything like this?
Any suggestions on how to do it?
Any other way to get the count?
man mailstats
--
Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson
against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include
-Original Message-
From: Brian Moses [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 6/5/2006 9:55 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Cc:
Subject:Pyzor Issues
Everyone,
I'm pretty new to Spamassassin, so if I ask a dumb question please bear
with me a bit.
I'm trying to set
ndary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and forward. Greylisting really
helps in these cases.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://radscan.com/~jon
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it&#
I have SA 3.1.4 and FuzzyOCR 2.3b installed…I keep
getting these messages in the log whenever I test any gif and png samples…
[2006-10-03 11:24:33] Unexpected error in pipe to external
programs.
Please check that all helper programs are installed and in the correc
I'm getting a lot of spams slipping thru the net lately. They hit
BAYES_99 and nothing else, usually, because they contain almost no
content other than a URL:
http://uk.geocities.com/Robt_Bright/?M0v=Make.your.day_enjoyable.without
URIDNSBL is apparently skipping that due to it being geocitie
Thomas Deliduka wrote:
Ah, Gotcha. So, how can I simply empty out the AWL? I want it reverted to
nothing so I can start fresh.
rm $HOME/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist*
t received mail that makes spamassassin do this in debug
mode:
debug: received-header: unknown format: from 15.65.160.36 for EQR.44.k..[snip]
try spamassassin -D on one of your and see what it says.
--
Jon Kvebaek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobil: +47 992 19 829
Unanimiter et constanter Oslo
) if anyone needs it.
Jon
iting for a complaint
from one of our users.
Jon Armitage
re Exim to call SA twice.
-Jon
Hi,
we get quite a few messages that have no Received: headers. These seem
to cause ALL_TRUSTED to fire (with a negative score of course), which
isn't exactly what I want. Any idea on how I should deal with this
correctly?
--
Jon Kvebaek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobil: +47 992 19 829
Un
Quoting Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jon Kvebaek wrote:
> > Hi,
> > we get quite a few messages that have no Received: headers. These
> seem
> > to cause ALL_TRUSTED to fire (with a negative score of course),
> which
> > isn't exactly what I w
from a bot-net vs. a 'lone wolf'?
--
"I drank what?" | Jon Trulson
-Socrates | mailto:j...@radscan.com
| A828 C19D A087 F20B DFED
| 67C9 6F32 31AB E647 B345
Justin Mason wrote:
sorry Marc, you weren't the first to come up with that idea.
He didn't say that he was, just that he was the first to raise it on the
list.
Jon
ail: Program failure (-25) of "/usr/bin/spamassassin"
procmail: Rescue of unfiltered data succeeded
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri May 30 09:09:45 2008
Subject: RE: Customize the email list for you - 498485
Folder: /var/mail/jon1332
sometime
cut your server load.
I'm also providing a public server to harvest fake MX info to help build my
blacklist. You can use this host for your fake high numbered MX. (Not a low
numbered MX though)
Que the spamvertising...
mail.yourdomain.com 10
tarbaby.junkemailfilter.
about a year ago. They were only
hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas stopped being useful a long time ago (IMO of
course :). Just zero them out.
--
Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson
against oppressor, rebel!| mai
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
I zeroed the scores for all of these rules about a year ago. They were
only hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas
27;s
definitely on the rise from where I sit.
At home, I've also seen an increase - approx 150 a
day from around 80-90 previously.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
aught with bayes 99
as well :)
I guess YMMV of course, but it's worked well here w/o the need
to come up with custom rules every time some new spammer trick
rolls around.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
