cjeanneret wrote:
The best thing would be it delivers spams to the user, letting him the
choice to acknowledge it as a spam, or to say hey man, that's a ham!.
I didn't find doc page about this, maybe I missed it ?
Actually it's already doing that, have a look at the official FAQ and docs
aquero wrote:
When I sent mails from this server using javamail, the spamscore header is
appearing in it also. But I want the spamscore to appear only in mails
sent to my mail server. How can i fix this issue, please provide a
solution.
Looks like your MTA is configured to scan
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Lemke
le...@jam-software.com wrote:
cjeanneret wrote:
The best thing would be it delivers spams to the user, letting him the
choice to acknowledge it as a spam, or to say hey man, that's a ham!.
I didn't find doc page about this, maybe I
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent
runs through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
On 17.06.10 12:13, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Hmmm, this mail came in and went straight to the users inbox. 1.
Postfix --- 2.
Daniel Lemke wrote:
aquero wrote:
When I sent mails from this server using javamail, the spamscore header
is appearing in it also. But I want the spamscore to appear only in mails
sent to my mail server. How can i fix this issue, please provide a
solution.
Looks like your MTA
I seem to be misunderstanding something about writing mimeheader rules.
I'm trying to match these MIME headers:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset = utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/html; charset = utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
with these rules:
mimeheader
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Randy Ramsdell rramsd...@activedg.com wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
The original email did not hit the NO_RELAYS rule but subsequent runs
through do hit this rule and it isn't on all email.
This sounds to me like
Hi,
I have the latest version of spamassassin, I am unable to find the logic behind
the following rule and it's high spam score.
MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT 3.099
Can anybody give a reason?
Thanks in advance
Ashish Sharma
On 6/21/10 3:25 PM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
Hi,
I have the latest version of spamassassin, I am unable to find the logic behind
the following rule and it's high spam score.
MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT 3.099
Can anybody give a reason?
grep MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT *
72_active.cf:##{ MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT
On 6/21/10 3:25 PM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
Hi,
I have the latest version of spamassassin, I am unable to find the logic behind
the following rule and it's high spam score.
MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT 3.099
as for the scoring, it is done autoomaticallay, checking how much 'ham'
has more than 4
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/21/10 3:25 PM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
Hi,
I have the latest version of spamassassin, I am unable to find the
logic behind the following rule and it's high spam score.
MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT 3.099
Can anybody give a reason?
grep MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT *
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/21/10 3:25 PM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
I have the latest version of spamassassin, I am unable to find the
logic behind the following rule and it's high spam score.
MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT 3.099
Can anybody give a reason?
My philosophy in the past has always been not to scan outgoing emails
because my users are not likely to be spamming.
However, a couple of issues recently with spambots and SMTP AUTH with
weak passwords has me reconsidering that stance.
Is anyone here currently scanning their outgoing mail
On 21/06/2010 11:39 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
My philosophy in the past has always been not to scan outgoing emails
because my users are not likely to be spamming.
However, a couple of issues recently with spambots and SMTP AUTH with
weak passwords has me reconsidering that stance.
Is anyone
Adam Moffett adamli...@plexicomm.net wrote:
My philosophy in the past has always been not to scan outgoing emails
because my users are not likely to be spamming.
However, a couple of issues recently with spambots and SMTP AUTH with
weak passwords has me reconsidering that stance.
Is anyone
We do not. We inadvertently did and it wasted a lot of our time when
our customers would periodically send mail that we would tag as spam,
since they would call us and complain. The arguments that their mail
would also have been tagged as spam by their recipient's mailserver
mostly fell on
Hi all.
I need to programmatically put one or more address into whitelist. How
can i do it?
Thanks in advance.
--
-Massimiliano Giovine
On 6/21/10 5:31 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
We do not. We inadvertently did and it wasted a lot of our time when
our customers would periodically send mail that we would tag as spam,
since they would call us and complain. The arguments that their mail
would also have been tagged as spam by
On man 21 jun 2010 23:41:57 CEST, Massimiliano Giovine wrote
I need to programmatically put one or more address into whitelist. How
can i do it?
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Freemail
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF
perldoc
Hi,
by default, our appliances don't do outbound spam scanning (they scan for
virus, banned attachments). they have to enable outbound scanning, which has
more relaxed rules.
How do you control rules based on whether it's inbound or outbound?
Two different spamd ports?
My trouble is that I
On 6/21/2010 4:41 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
by default, our appliances don't do outbound spam scanning (they scan for
virus, banned attachments). they have to enable outbound scanning, which has
more relaxed rules.
How do you control rules based on whether it's inbound or outbound?
Two different
Alex,
My understanding is that the only way to avoid this, at least when
amavisd and postfix, is to create another instance and modifying the
smtpd and using policy banks, which is quite involved. Is this
correct?
Depends on your mail routing topology. Often it suffices to just:
22 matches
Mail list logo
