David Barr wrote:
> Am I in the right place? Does a better method exist for reporting false
> positives? razor-fpos doesn't have anything in its archive more recent
> than 2003.
>
> Thanks!
> David
As Theo said, use razor revoke.
Also, as a further note, it's completely pointless to forward us the headers of
a FP without the body. Razor ONLY examines the body of the message. It does not
examine the message headers. Thus, from the information provided, nobody can do
anything to reproduce or verify your FP.
Razor currently supports two engines:
e4 does SHA hashes of each mime part of the message body
e8 does a custom hash of URLs found in the message body.
Also, since you appear to be using both razor and spamassassin 3.1.x, I'd
suggest calling razor from SA instead of using it as an absolute spam-tag
criteria by itself. You'll get fewer FPs like this due to the balance of scoring
from other rules. You can do this by editing your v310.pre and uncommenting the
loadplugin line for the razor plugin.
As a side benefit, the razor rules in SA will often point out which engine fired
(E4 vs E8) and a range of CF values it fell into.
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Razor-users mailing list
Razor-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
