On 19 Oct 2016, at 23:23, Pedro David Marco wrote:
Hmmm... Relevant context of those lines is lost with grep, but they
confirm something odd is going on.
Bill, your remark is welcome, what lines/info should i pay attention
to or event post here?
The full output of the Dumper. As John said,
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/20/2016 12:55 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who
On 10/20/2016 12:55 PM, David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score,
On 10/20/2016 06:44 PM, Nicola Piazzi wrote:
Why not try my powerful plugin to reduce score of known users ? Is
based on people that answer to us and in my case, after 3 week of
learning, it HIT 70% of incoming messages that are absolutely ham
http://saplugin.16mb.com/
If you mean your OW
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
positive. That's exactly what I
Why not try my powerful plugin to reduce score of known users ?
Is based on people that answer to us and in my case, after 3 week of learning,
it HIT 70% of incoming messages that are absolutely ham
http://saplugin.16mb.com/
Nicola Piazzi
CED - Sistemi
COMET s.p.a.
Via Michelino, 105 - 40127
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
positive. That's exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding
score
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:34:04 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are
> known to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
> positive.
Which is why I pointed you towards a short paragraph that describes
what it actually
On 2016-10-20 08:34, simplerezo wrote:
> My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known
> to not send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false
> positive. That's exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding
> score for mail with "invoice" pretention and
My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known to not
send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false positive. That's
exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding score for mail with
"invoice" pretention and an attachment but only for very unknown users (or
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:01:17 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> Because our users cannot easyly add all theirs contacts to whitelist.
>
> AWL is a great feature, and it's working well: so it would be nice
> for us to put some restrictives rules only active for "unknown" users
> (example: "invoices"
Because our users cannot easyly add all theirs contacts to whitelist.
AWL is a great feature, and it's working well: so it would be nice for us to
put some restrictives rules only active for "unknown" users (example:
"invoices" ...).
--
View this message in context:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:55:29 -0700 (MST)
simplerezo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to write rule based on AWL score?
No
> We have some customs rules that we don't want to enable for
> "well-known" contacts...
Why not just whitelist them?
Hi,
Is it possible to write rule based on AWL score?
We have some customs rules that we don't want to enable for "well-known"
contacts...
I tried this:
metaSR__AWL ( AWL <= -1 )
describeSR__AWL AWL is at least -1
score SR__AWL -0.01
14 matches
Mail list logo
