On Thursday 13 Nov 2003 3:42 pm, Bryan Phinney wrote: > On Thursday 13 November 2003 10:23 am, Derek Jennings wrote: > > No still the same. Reading 'man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf' it looks as if > > the tflags statement should always assign a test type to a test. I made > > them all test type 'net' and now the config files parse OK. > > > > Now to see if they will start catching spam :-) > > Well, I added them to my copy as well. Funny, the lines never showed an > error to me and the flags were working because they show when I examined > previous spam but thanks for pointing out the parsing errors, I have > adjusted my copy and if anything, hopefully, it will work better. > > I hope that you adjusted the scores on the file, I put a pretty high score > on some of the country lists as well as some of the ISP's in particular > RoadRunner and some others because of the high frequency of compromised > machines with cable modems. YMMV a lot.
OK I have adjusted some of the scores and it is all working nicely, but I have a question? What is the difference between RCVD_IN_SORBS and the specific Sorbs tests like X_SORBS_SOCKS ? If a mail fails a specific Sorbs test then won't it by definition also trigger the general test? derek -- ---------------------------------- www.jennings.homelinux.net http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
