Hi List
Sorry to post here with this.
Does anyone know if its possible to use Spamassassin for SMS filtering?
The powers that be are looking for a spam solution for the SMSC and
asked if SA is an option.
I have advised NO but thought I would ask the list for idea's
Many thanks
T
On 4/16/2015 3:13 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
Sorry to post here with this.
Does anyone know if its possible to use Spamassassin for SMS filtering?
The powers that be are looking for a spam solution for the SMSC and
asked if SA is an option.
I have advised NO but thought I would ask the list
Vernon, do you have a recommended score for the implementation of
DCC with SA? There are concerns that bulk mail from good senders has
been hit by DCC which is completely by design.
Vernon replied off-list so I wanted to bring the relevant portion back
to the list:
My general suggestion is
Sorry, it is not our job to provide support for GetResponse.com Their
answer is wrong and as best I can tell they have old rules and need to
look at running sa-update. Telling you to consult with us is
completely wrong. Research the product, read our website, sure. They
are clear about
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Vernon, do you have a recommended score for the implementation of
DCC with SA? There are concerns that bulk mail from good senders has
been hit by DCC which is completely by design.
Vernon replied off-list so I wanted to bring the relevant portion back
to the list:
My
On 04/16/2015 02:15 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
I don't agree with moving a DCC rule into a __* rule or setting
its score to a near zero. I find DCC hits useful as they are now:
contributing to the overall score, bit not so large as to make
a major effect by themselves.
FWIW; I totally agree
Am 16.04.2015 um 14:55 schrieb Axb:
On 04/16/2015 02:15 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
I don't agree with moving a DCC rule into a __* rule or setting
its score to a near zero. I find DCC hits useful as they are now:
contributing to the overall score, bit not so large as to make
a major effect by
On 16 Apr 2015, at 7:29, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Sorry, it is not our job to provide support for GetResponse.com
And that's a very good thing, since GetResponse/Implix is a chronic
intentional spamming operation. It would be a disturbing conflict of
interest for the SpamAssassin core
On 04/16/2015 02:15 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
I don't agree with moving a DCC rule into a __* rule or setting
its score to a near zero. I find DCC hits useful as they are now:
contributing to the overall score, bit not so large as to make
a major effect by themselves.
Am 16.04.2015 um 14:55
Am 16.04.2015 um 17:45 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 04/16/2015 02:15 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
I don't agree with moving a DCC rule into a __* rule or setting
its score to a near zero. I find DCC hits useful as they are now:
contributing to the overall score, bit not so large as to make
a
On 4/16/2015 10:50 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 7:29, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Sorry, it is not our job to provide support for GetResponse.com
And that's a very good thing, since GetResponse/Implix is a chronic
intentional spamming operation. It would be a disturbing conflict of
Hello,
After hardware failure, I did an OS upgrade, too, and have a new Fedora
Core 21 installation with these packages installed:
postfix-2.11.3-1.fc21.x86_64
spamass-milter-0.4.0-1.fc21.x86_64
spamass-milter-postfix-0.4.0-1.fc21.noarch
spamassassin-3.4.0-13.fc21.x86_64
I'm a long-time
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:14:12 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Vernon, do you have a recommended score for the implementation of
DCC with SA? There are concerns that bulk mail from good senders
has been hit by DCC which is completely by design.
Vernon replied off-list so I wanted to bring
On 2015-04-16 21:11, Richard Troy wrote:
I don't know exactly about ownership and file modes as I don't use
spamass-milter myself, but I would suggest a simplefied version of the
path you choose, unix:/spamass-milter/postfix.sock
OK, again thanks, will try.
Ok, I just installed
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, RW wrote:
I don't see why it's not auto generated - perhaps with a cap of 1.5.
How long are signatures kept in the DCC database? Masscheck uses a corpus
that covers a couple of years. If the DCC signatures expire within a month
or two then that would skew the masscheck
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Marieke Janssen wrote:
On 2015-04-16 19:08, Richard Troy wrote:
postfix/smtpd[18151]: warning: connect to Milter service
unix:/run/spamass-milter/postfix/sock: No such file or directory
Postfix probably tries to read
Anyone interested in being considered for a quote for the press release
of SA 3.4.1, please reach out to me off-list ASAP. It's good publicity
for an organization too!
Regards,
KAM
On 2015-04-16 19:08, Richard Troy wrote:
postfix/smtpd[18151]: warning: connect to Milter service
unix:/run/spamass-milter/postfix/sock: No such file or directory
Postfix probably tries to read
/var/spool/postfix/run/spamass-milter/postfix/sock as I do believe the
path is relative to the
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:18:21 -0400
Roman Gelfand wrote:
Does sa-learn need read write access to emails or read only will do?
Just read access.
In case of false negative, should I use --forget option to retrain?
There's no need for that, it will work out what to do for itself.
19 matches
Mail list logo
