I don't want to push my luck, but it seems that instead of a checkbox
(or may in addition to) there should be an E-mail Threshold.
There is a message threshhold.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join
That's so cool. I ask about e-mail scoring, there's a discussion
about
it, and 2 days later Fritz has implemented changes to incorporate it.
Fritz, you rock.
Actually as I mentioned, it was already there. Instead of modus3 for
PB I put now an additionally checkbox in. modus 3 was single
I don't want to push my luck, but it seems that instead of a checkbox
(or may in addition to) there should be an E-mail Threshold.
There is a message threshhold.
OK, I've got 1.2.7.1 (19) and I'm not seeing that anywhere, so I looked
through the code. DoPenaltyMessage compares the total
OK, I've got 1.2.7.1 (19) and I'm not seeing that anywhere, so I
looked
through the code. DoPenaltyMessage compares the total message score
to
PenaltyLimit, which is the IP threshold. If that threshold is low
enough to reject an individual e-mail, then the IP gets PB, doesn't
it?
I mean, the
On 9 Jan 2007 at 10:09, Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
I understand what PB is now, but I'd still like to be able weight
test and give each e-mail a final spam score. I envision it working
like PB. The user weights each test. After each test, its score is
added to a total, and if the total
Is this how it works, or am I missing something here?
It works this way.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT
OK, I've got 1.2.7.1 (19) and I'm not seeing that anywhere, so I
looked
through the code. DoPenaltyMessage compares the total message score
to
PenaltyLimit, which is the IP threshold. If that threshold is low
enough to reject an individual e-mail, then the IP gets PB, doesn't
it?
I mean, the
brougham Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May be Doug will say something, he is the one I believe who uses it
(besides me).
That what? Uses the PB to block persistent idiot ip addresses? I do too.
What feature do you
Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Agreed, however, like I said, that kind of kills the concept of using
the
PenaltyBox in that case for the actual purpose for which it was
intended.
How can you say that? My purpose was absolutely to have both functions
Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now if I want to just block that one email, and not penalize
the entire IP block, I would have to set PenaltyDuration to 0. Then
the
next email coming from that IP will be processed as normal.
However, and here is the
I understand what PB is now, but I'd still like to be able weight
test and give each e-mail a final spam score. I envision it working
like PB. The user weights each test. After each test, its score is
added to a total, and if the total ever surpasses a user-defined
limit, testing stops and
I understand what PB is now, but I'd still like to be able weight
test and give each e-mail a final spam score. I envision it working
like PB. The user weights each test. After each test, its score is
added to a total, and if the total ever surpasses a user-defined
limit, testing stops
Actually, I sorta figured out the score only after I built the
spamdb
earlier this evening and finally got spam-prob to show something other
than 0, .5, and 1. However, I still don't see any way to specify
weight
or adjust the 0.6 limit. And I'd really like to see more tests with
scoring,
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
For example, user sets a limit of 100, and weights HELO at 90 and
spam bomb at 15. If a server fails HELO, the e-mail isn't rejected,
but if it also fails spam bomb (90+15100), then it's spam.
Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
For example, user sets a limit of 100, and weights HELO at 90 and
spam bomb at 15. If a server fails HELO, the
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
I think that the difference (from my understanding at least) that
Bennett is
asking for is a weighting for individual tests for individual emails.
Yes, I understand and that can be
Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
I think that the difference (from my understanding at least) that
Bennett is
asking for is a weighting for individual
I think that the difference (from my understanding at least) that
Bennett is asking for is a weighting for individual tests for
individual emails.
LOL...yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. I spent all this
morning confused and looking back over PB and all the ASSP settings,
until I
Bennett Lee wrote:
LOL...yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. I spent all this
morning confused and looking back over PB and all the ASSP settings,
until I finally re-read the PB wiki to find out that PB is exactly what
I thought--a score that applies to the server.
I'm still
I thought--a score that applies to the server.
I'm still interested in the individual e-mail score--it just makes
sense
to me.
Would you believe me, that you are wrong. I described the possibility
of using scoring to combine tests very early. There is a reason, that
I put in the *score only*
Agreed, however, like I said, that kind of kills the concept of using
the
PenaltyBox in that case for the actual purpose for which it was
intended.
How can you say that? My purpose was absolutely to have both functions
in it - why would the *score only* option exist anyway?
Look into the
From: Fritz Borgstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May be Doug will say something, he is the one I believe who uses it
(besides me).
That what? Uses the PB to block persistent idiot ip addresses? I do too.
What feature do you mean?
Bro
First off, I want to praise the ASSP developers. Great program! I've
known about it for several months and finally installed it on my home
mail server a few days ago. I'm so pleased with it that I'll probably
convert a lot of my clients to it. Looking forward to URIBL in 1.2.7.
But onto my
23 matches
Mail list logo
