Hi everyone,
Tell me if this is a dumb idea: Would it be possible to have an upper
and lower threshold on PB scoring to filter the terribly obvious spam
from the not so obvious spam?
In single message mode, one can use the Penalty Boxes scoring system on
a single message to mark it spam/ham.
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Tell me if this is a dumb idea: Would it be possible to have an upper
and lower threshold on PB scoring to filter the terribly obvious spam
from the not so obvious spam?
It is not, please try
Here is a problem that ALWAYS catches me out, and I'm wondering if others
on the list have any ideas the best way to deal with it.
I have ASSP installed on my colo-ed web/mail server, hosting a dozen or so
domains, including my own. I have the greylisting/delaying function turned
on, and it is
What has changed in the build that we should be looking at?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz
Borgstedt
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:53 AM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] PB
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Tell me if this is a dumb idea: Would it be possible to have an upper
and lower threshold on PB scoring to filter the terribly obvious spam
from the not so obvious
Dave Emory wrote:
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
Tell me if this is a dumb idea: Would it be possible to have an upper
and lower threshold on PB scoring to filter the terribly obvious spam
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
The website says build 20 is the latest, but the assp.pl linked
reports
build 18
the actual built is 1.3.2 (20).
the new options are:
Low Threshold for Combined Scores per Message
PB will not
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
the actual built is 1.3.2 (20).
the new options are:
Low Threshold for Combined Scores per Message
PB will not block messages whose score exceeds this threshold during
the message but tag them. For example: 40
High Threshold for Combined Scores per Message
PB
Ok, I see it now. It still resets some settings to default on
restart,
however. It's pretty frustrating as Delaying is turned on by default,
and I never want it on.
Maybe you delete the assp.cfg file. Built 20 is *not* resetting values
to default.
Hi,
I have ASSP running on a server with a published SPF record (v=spf1 a
mx ptr ~all), this was set up by my hosting company, so I'm not 100%
sure what it all means.
Either way, about half of the users have their mailboxes on the server,
the other half have their mail forwarded to other
Hi,
Sometimes users wonder why certain emails failed at the spam filter.
Instead of getting them to forward the emails to me, having me copy and
paste them (making sure to retain the headers), then emailing back the
result; could an email interface be made to the tester?
An email forwarded as
Sometimes users wonder why certain emails failed at the spam filter.
Instead of getting them to forward the emails to me, having me copy and
paste them (making sure to retain the headers), then emailing back the
result; could an email interface be made to the tester?
An email forwarded
David Norelid wrote:
Hi,
I have ASSP running on a server with a published SPF record (v=spf1 a
mx ptr ~all), this was set up by my hosting company, so I'm not 100%
sure what it all means.
It means the A, ptr, and MX ip addresses/servers for your domain are
valid senders for your domain.
David Norelid wrote:
Hi,
An email forwarded as an attachment to assp-test@ would be replied to
with the same data provided by the admin gui message tester.
Does the mail analyzer do the whole range of tests (rbl, spf, etc) or
does it only do bayesian testing?
From the source code:
Does the mail analyzer do the whole range of tests (rbl, spf, etc) or
does it only do bayesian testing?
Analyze does nothing where it would need DNS support.
fritz
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download
Hello,
The majority of my clients prefer to have their spam discarded rather
than tagged and passed through, but the problem arises when something
legit is blocked. Now, because the bayesian filters have been well
trained and the whitelist well populated, there aren't very many false
Elvar wrote:
Hello,
The majority of my clients prefer to have their spam discarded rather
than tagged and passed through, but the problem arises when something
legit is blocked.
The users can easily store their own spam mail. The {SPAM} tag inserted in
the subject and a simple rule in the
Elvar wrote:
Hello,
The majority of my clients prefer to have their spam discarded rather
than tagged and passed through, but the problem arises when something
legit is blocked. Now, because the bayesian filters have been well
trained and the whitelist well populated, there aren't very
Kevin and Dave,
Thanks for the replies and thoughts. Up until not long ago I always
tagged spam and let the users sort it out and be responsible for missing
something but so many of them preferred just not to see it so I started
discarding it. I guess if they complain I'll just force them
19 matches
Mail list logo
