Hi Folks,
I post infrequently - and intend to keep it that way - and want to ensure
my posts have actual value to the community.
First, I'm NOT a member of the d...@spamassassin.apache.org email list and
I surely hope someone who is will kindly forward this email to that list.
List
That's better than deluded.
On 7/20/2020 8:24 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Jul 20, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
On 7/20/2020 5:49 PM, jdow wrote:
On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
*> Why make the change?*
I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to
> On Jul 20, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>
> On 7/20/2020 5:49 PM, jdow wrote:
>> On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>> *> Why make the change?*
>>>
>>> I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to s
"Kevin A. McGrail" writes:
>> Re: Turning off and on backwards compatibility
> This idea isn't really needed. The issue we are working through is the
> changes needed to support
> both current releases like 3.4.4 (soon to be 3.4.5), upcoming releases like
> 4.0.0 AND some people
> still using
On 7/20/2020 5:49 PM, jdow wrote:
On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
*> Why make the change?*
I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of
the ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are
going to see this change pretty broadly.
On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
*> Why make the change?*
I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of the
ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are going to see
this change pretty broadly.
So this is basically your doing. Wha
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:05:25 +0200
Marc Roos wrote:
>> I'm a bit suspicious about some of the speedup figures quoted, and
>> whether rspamd was tested against an optimized and similarly
>> parameterized SA. It's very easy to make SA look bad.
>
> I agree. I have even asked on the mailing list
Hello, all, with so much volume on the list, I thought it would be
helpful to touch on a number of topics in one email.
Regards,
KAM
*> if you are running 3.X not trunk*
The rule renaming and scoring and description issues shoule be resolved
as soon as the automated system publishes the
>> You go shut your piehole
Ehhh, who exactly? Having a nice evening with a vodka bottle? ;)
You go shut your piehole
Woke white guys who know best about racism against blacks and who use a
domain name that insults native Americans have spoken!!!
Black people and people of color need to go sit down and shut up while
woke white guys who know best for them do what is best for
On 20/07/20 19:31, John Hardin wrote:
Apologies for not clarifying that detail; I was aware of it. I did
hedge by saying "(potentially) subject to renaming".
No apologies necessary, it wasn't directed to you :)
I'm just trying to raise awareness that, while changing things is
possible,
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
On 20/07/20 19:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent
On 20/07/20 19:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent on SA
rule names.
Here just to say that
On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 09:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> It would be helpful if we could be informed whether anyone has post-
> SA processing that looks for these rulenames in the SA hit results,
> e.g. for making message delivery decisions.
>
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Thom van der Boon wrote:
One example is that our IRS ("Belastingdienst") is whitelisted by the following
rule:
whitelist_from_spf *@belastingdienst.nl
That configuration syntax will continue to be supported for at least one
year after the release of SA 4.0 (i.e. it
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please
> I'm a bit suspicious about some of the speedup figures quoted, and
whether rspamd was tested
> against an optimized and similarly parameterized SA. It's very easy to
make SA look bad.
I agree. I have even asked on the mailing list how many test rspamd does
and how I can configure it to
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:41:43 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
>
> I have proved over 60 hours that it is insanely better, but, it would
> be remiss of me not to conduct a larger, lengthy test before
> committing staff resources to wiping spamassassin from our networks
>
> > are you saying just
ah sorry i wrote that totally wrong...
i mean we have "whitelist_from" setting.
should i change that to "welcomelist_from" or to "welcome_from", because when changing from "whitelist" to
"welcomelist" should "welcomelist_from" be "right" but "welcome_from" sounds better.
So my second
What is being used for mail that is not welcome, but still needs to be
allowed thru?
-Original Message-
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST
in process of being Renamed
can we use something like that or is there
can we use something like that or is there any special edit necessary?
sed -i 's/whitelist/welcomelist/g' $CONFIG
my setting "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from" || "welcome_from"?
Thanks
Am 19.07.20 um 18:09 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
All:
As of today, the configuration option
I read the thread. I didn't comment because it was obvious the rationals
would lose and the unnecessary changes would go ahead. From that
discussion I took away the thought that I had a long-ish breathing space
which would allow me to update my complete mail server - OS, Postfix and
all - and
Whether or not it's the ONLY one it should have been NONE. You claimed
we would not have to change anything for at least a year - as I
understodd it. Certainly you should not have broken existing installations!
I am running 3.4.2, dictated by my OS. I am quite happy running that
version - at
On Sunday 19 July 2020 at 17:44:27, Linkcheck wrote:
Thanks to those responsible for screwing up the scoring of my
spamassassin installation. It's been working well for years but now my
changes to scoring have been cancelled due to renaming
whitelist/blacklist to whatever.
I noticed it purely
On Sun, 2020-07-19 at 20:27 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/19/2020 8:23 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > The only way I can see to prevent the name changes from affecting SA
> > users private rules is to duplicate the affected rules
>
> Yeah, I just posted this idea on the dev list to use a
What about mailfromd? I have this. I am really surprised it is not in
default repo's. I also looked at rspamd, but I have a bit of a problem
with these thousands of lines of config. Also their approach towards
stats/graphics is 'old fashioned', who is programming that when you have
tools
Dear Kevin,
I maintain a rule set specificly targeted at the Dutch language: [
https://dutchspamassassinrules.nl/DSR/DSR.cf |
https://dutchspamassassinrules.nl/DSR/DSR.cf ]
One example is that our IRS ("Belastingdienst") is whitelisted by the following
rule:
whitelist_from_spf
On 19 Jul 2020, at 21:23, Olivier wrote:
> Please consider adding an easy way to turn the backward compatibility on
> and off.
I would suggest to settings, one that warns the definition has changed and one
that errors on the old term rather than just a "turn on compatibility" which
will mean
On 20200719 15:44:54, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
On 19 Jul 2020, at 10:54, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Great question. That's really a third party rule. I would like to see it
change eventually but maybe that's another phase. Thoughts?
My thoughts are to delay any further social/political motivated
29 matches
Mail list logo
