Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 23:58 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
or more generic make a ticket if its in public intrest to make it
generic change :)
It is not.
Indeed, and just to clarify, deep parsing of received headers works
reasonably well *for the spamcop
Hi all,
Recently I've noticed that a lot of spam that I am getting is not caught by
SpamAssassin, despite the fact that it is very similar to other spam I got and
that I marked as spam using the Bayesian training. I've placed a sample of
some of the recent messagess I got here:
Hi all,
Recently I've noticed that a lot of spam that I am getting is not
caught by
SpamAssassin, despite the fact that it is very similar to other spam I
got and
that I marked as spam using the Bayesian training. I've placed a sample
of
some of the recent messagess I got here:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
The X-Spam-Status of some of the messages in your set, reports that you
enabled the autolearning facility, and that it has Learnt the message as
ham. This may be the why you have so low Bayes hits.
I would suggest to revise the Bayes autolearn
On 20/08/10 19:44, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Karsten Br�ckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:47 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:12 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
false-positives hitting on the rules JM_SOUGHT_1 and JM_SOUGHT_2.
Unfortunaley I can
