Am 24.03.2015 um 08:59 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
do you use spamass-milter? I have problems that spamass-milter uses invalid
Received: date when the message is received over TLS connection.
(this message was received over TLS connection)
why does SA take anything but the date *header*
Am 24.03.2015 um 08:59 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
do you use spamass-milter? I have problems that spamass-milter uses invalid
Received: date when the message is received over TLS connection.
(this message was received over TLS connection)
On 24.03.15 10:44, Reindl Harald wrote:
why does
Hi,
I contacted the list a couple of weeks ago about SA not missing a lot of
spam I thought it should be catching. There duplicates of message that I
had put through sa-learn, that were still getting passed. One of the
suggestions offered here, after posting my command line here, was that I
well, a better setup would run spamassassin via milter *before-queue*
and proper reject junk at SMTP level - so you have a tag level let say
between 5.5 and 7.9 points and reject above 8.0
the flagged ones can go in a seperate folder via sieve and the
absolute
high score junk is proper rejected
Am 24.03.2015 um 23:13 schrieb Alex Regan:
Spamassassin already verifies authenticity, although not pre-queue
whatever setup *not* pre-queue is wrong as long the server is not a
personal machine because you are not allowed to silent discard mail as
well you *must not* send bounces as
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 24.03.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Lorenzo Thurman:
I contacted the list a couple of weeks ago about SA not missing a lot of
spam I thought it should be catching. There duplicates of message that I
had put through
I contacted the list a couple of weeks ago about SA not missing a lot of spam I
thought it should be catching. There duplicates of message that I had put
through sa-learn, that were still getting passed. One of the suggestions
offered here, after posting my command line here, was that I should
Am 24.03.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Lorenzo Thurman:
I contacted the list a couple of weeks ago about SA not missing a lot of
spam I thought it should be catching. There duplicates of message that I
had put through sa-learn, that were still getting passed. One of the
suggestions offered here, after
On 23.03.15 16:12, Shane Williams wrote:
I've been running emails through a 3.4.0 installation and an older
version simultaneously in order to compare and tweak as necessary and
I've noticed quite a few instances where DATE_IN_FUTURE or
DATE_IN_PAST tests are hit when no such discrepancy seems
