I've already moved over to using my personal gmail.
Sadly I don't have control over my corporate email account and the
signature keep reappearing.
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 21:28, @lbutlr wrote:
> This garbafge is inappropriate for a mailing list. It is also enforceable
> BS (I use to post ever
This garbafge is inappropriate for a mailing list. It is also enforceable BS (I
use to post ever email with this kind of garbage to a public website)
On 15 May 2019, at 10:55, Paul Stead wrote:
> This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message
> in error, please
On 15/05/2019, 16:19, "RW" wrote:
That's my point. It leaves little incentive to distinguish between
network and non-network runs.
Good point... I don't know the QA scripts well enough to be able to comment
more.
It does look like the net contributions during the week from jarif
On 5/15/2019 11:47 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
>> Does anyone know what or where this is coming from?
>
> As RW noted, that is a state that occurs when a SPF record exists but
> it cannot be properly interpreted. This most commonly has one of two
> root causes:
>
> 1. A typo in the SPF record that makes
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:29 PM Lucio wrote:
> Is there any configuration to have spamd log a particular message
> header long with the other informations it usually logs?
>
I've not seen that mentioned by anybody, but, you can always write a
filter that sits immediately downstream of spamc and
On 15 May 2019, at 7:58, Brent Clark wrote:
Good day Guys
Im seeing T_SPF_PERMERROR in my logs.
For what domain?
Does anyone know what or where this is coming from?
As RW noted, that is a state that occurs when a SPF record exists but it
cannot be properly interpreted. This most
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:14:30PM +0100, RW wrote:
>
> > I think the concept of scoresets is pointless these days anyway. Does
> > someone actually run legit mailserver without bayes and network tests?
>
> But if you do that you are running a score set that has been optimized
> for only network
On 15 May 2019, at 8:02, Brent Clark wrote:
Just after I sent the T_SPF_PERMERROR the following came in my inbox.
TLDR; openspf.org is down
Those are entirely unrelated. openspf.org has been down for months, and
it was only an informational resource, NOT an operational one in any
way.
Hi,
I have been trying to get the HitFreqsRuleTiming plugin working with masscheck.
Do you know if HitFreqsRuleTiming is fully supported for masscheck?
I added the following line to init.pre.
loadplugin HitFreqsRuleTiming
/opt/spamassassin/masses/plugins/HitFreqsRuleTiming.pm
When running
Even I am new, check if this works.
Go to /etc/default/spamassassin and change the following,
OPTIONS="--create-prefs --max-children 2 --username spamd \-H ${SAHOME} -s
${SAHOME}spamd.log"
(This specifies the username Spamassassin will run under as spamd, as well
as add the home directory, create
On Wed, 15 May 2019 14:59:18 +
Paul Stead wrote:
> On 15/05/2019, 15:45, "RW" wrote:
>
> >
> >Network rules are only run every saturday:
> >https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190511-r1859108-n
>
> Why is that necessary when network results should be reused? Most
> of them
On Wed, 15 May 2019 17:51:54 +0300
Henrik K wrote:
> > That not the point. Without taking account of Bayes, the other rules
> > get tuned differently. Bayes has a substantial effect on the score
> > of almost everything scanned.
>
> I think the concept of scoresets is pointless these days
On 15/05/2019, 15:45, "RW" wrote:
>
>Network rules are only run every saturday:
>https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190511-r1859108-n
Why is that necessary when network results should be reused? Most of
them are meaningless if retested after several days.
That's the
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:45:22PM +0100, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:41:00 +0300
> Henrik K wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:15:19PM +0100, RW wrote:
> > >
> > > Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules?
> >
> > How do you propose to generate such statistics, when all
On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:41:00 +0300
Henrik K wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:15:19PM +0100, RW wrote:
> >
> > Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules?
>
> How do you propose to generate such statistics, when all contributors
> already are supposed to have fully sorted ham/spam
I noticed the jarif ruleset contributing net scores during nightlies a few
weeks ago - I've asked jarif about this but couldn't see an immediate
problem/solution.
I've also raised a potential issue on the ruleqa RE some potential problems.
On 15/05/2019, 14:16, "RW" wrote:
Also why do
On 15/05/2019, 14:41, "Henrik K" wrote:
jarif has some flags wrong if doing it every day..
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff734261cb1d8ec9dea9df42f314a60ec20c1919b8bd21c71b38553f@%3Cruleqa.spamassassin.apache.org%3E
--
Paul Stead
Senior Engineer
Zen Internet
Direct: 01706 902018
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:15:19PM +0100, RW wrote:
>
> Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules?
How do you propose to generate such statistics, when all contributors
already are supposed to have fully sorted ham/spam corpuses? Seems kind of
redundant as all spam would hit BAYES_99
Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules?
Also why do all the network rule statistics come from a single
contributor labelled 'jarif'? A corpus with only 484 ham in it.
If this is genuinely what is being contributed, how is it possible to
generate all four score sets?
On Wed, 15 May 2019 13:58:43 +0200
Brent Clark wrote:
> Good day Guys
>
> Im seeing T_SPF_PERMERROR in my logs.
>
> Does anyone know what or where this is coming from?
From rfc 7208:
2.6.7. Permerror
A "permerror" result means the domain's published records could not
be correctly
Just after I sent the T_SPF_PERMERROR the following came in my inbox.
TLDR; openspf.org is down
HTH
Regards
Brent
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [mailop] openspf.org down
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:13:30 +0200
From: Lilium via mailop
Reply-To: Lilium
To: mai...@mailop.org
Good day Guys
Im seeing T_SPF_PERMERROR in my logs.
Does anyone know what or where this is coming from?
Regards
Brent Clark
Hello,
I'm new here but I've been using SA for quite a few years. I'm using SA
3.4.2 as packaged by Debian.
Is there any configuration to have spamd log a particular message header
along with the other informations it usually logs?
23 matches
Mail list logo
