Dear list,
I'd like to receive some feedback on the usage of zmi_german. If you use
it, please report to spam-ger...@zmi.at and tell me what you think about
it.
The ruleset is designed to filter only german spam, and is very safe.
Not a single report this year about FPs. If you didn't use it
On 2011-10-31 14:43, Michael Monnerie wrote:
Dear list,
I'd like to receive some feedback on the usage of zmi_german. If you use
it, please report to spam-ger...@zmi.at and tell me what you think about
it.
The ruleset is designed to filter only german spam, and is very safe.
Not a single
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:38 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
And I need to remind you that it hits almost as much ham as spam:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20111008-r1180336-n/T_SPOOFED_URL/detail
I agree it seems like we should be able to improve it. Maybe make
exceptions for known
Hi,
I have a fedora15 system with sa-3.3.2 and amavisd-2.6.6 and would
like to whitelist messages like these:
Oct 31 11:19:42 mail02 amavis[3518]: (03518-01-20) SPAM-TAG,
esc1108418484939_1103604989289_9473_...@in.constantcontact.com -
50...@example.com, No, score=-4.555 tagged_above=-100
From: Alex mysqlstud...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:18:33 -0400
I have a fedora15 system with sa-3.3.2 and amavisd-2.6.6 and would
like to whitelist messages like these:
Oct 31 11:19:42 mail02 amavis[3518]: (03518-01-20) SPAM-TAG,
This is a good time to pay attention to weird behavior. Rules showing up
that shouldn't have, stuff getting scored weird.
Scores were regenerated yesterday (October 30th) for the first time since
August 27th:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/scores/72_scores.cf?view=log
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:18:33 -0400, Alex wrote:
whitelist_from_dkim *@in.constantcontact.com
whitelist_from_dkim *@bertolini-sales.com
whitelist_from_dkim *@auth.ccsend.com
Hi,
Why does DKIM_VERIFIED have a zero score in 50_scores.cf?
Anybody, including spammers, can do DKIM. You could make have it
a small negative score like -0.5 or so.
Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are
also rules that apparently depend on it:
Oct 31
On 31/10/11 19:54, Alex wrote:
I'd rather not whitelist all of auth.ccsend.com, but only as it
relates to bertolini-sales.com, just as I wouldn't want to whitelist
all of constantcontact.com, or am I misunderstanding?
Thanks again,
Alex
I'm not sure why you feel the need to whitelist these
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:54:10 -0400, Alex wrote:
whitelist_from_dkim *@bertolini-sales.com auth.ccsend.com
whitelist_from_dkim *@auth.ccsend.com
I'd rather not whitelist all of auth.ccsend.com, but only as it
relates to bertolini-sales.com, just as I wouldn't want to whitelist
all of
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 13:55, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Normally rules get updated every day, via sa-update. They weren't
for the last couple months due to a clock on a server being set wrong:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6671
Interesting. In my mind, it's a
Linda Walsh wrote:
Sorry, included that in my subject
I did run sa-update, all it says (put it in verbose mode) is that
the rules are up to date.
Initially it did download the rules into
/var/lib/spamassassin/version/more subdirs.
Those files are still there, but spamd is,
apparently,
Alex,
Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are
also rules that apparently depend on it:
Oct 31 14:22:58.055 [2067] info: rules: meta test L_UNVERIFIED_GMAIL
has dependency 'DKIM_VERIFIED' with a zero score
It looks like perhaps it's there for legacy reasons? From
Alex,
(sorry for my previous post, sent prematurely)
Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are
also rules that apparently depend on it:
No, the DKIM_VERIFIED (or rather: DKIM_VALID, as it is now called)
(with a near-zero score) is valuable for two reasons: in
14 matches
Mail list logo
