cannot think this would do good things for
performance.
Any experience, comments, etc?
--
Kind Regards,
David
David Flanigan
Mobile: +1.513.560.8231
E: d...@flanigan.net W: http://www.flanigan.net
--
Juan,
You did the correct thing. Setting the score to zero will disable the
rule.
How are you running spamassassin (spamd, milter, MailScanner, procmail)?
---
Kind Regards,
David
David Flanigan
Mobile: +1.513.560.8231
E: d...@flanigan.net W: http://www.flanigan.net
On 2015-01-09
with thousands (or tens of thousands) SPAM message
but only a couple hundred HAM messages?
Kind Regards,
David
David Flanigan
Mobile: +1.513.560.8231
E: daveatflanigan.net W: http://www.flanigan.net
On 2015-01-08 18:13, David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Alex Regan wrote:
How about using
Spam Gurus:
I have a question that I am hoping one of you may be able to answer.
We run the latest version of SA running spamc/spamd with a global (not per
user)
config, and tag messages as spam for latter filtering by the mail client, as is
appropriate. However, now we have some people
@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:13:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Precleaning SA market spam from Mbox?
David Flanigan wrote:
Spam [WINDOWS-1252?]Guru#65533;s:
I have a question that I am hoping one of you may be able to answer.
We run the latest version of SA running spamc/spamd with a global
Hello oh gurus of Spamassassin:
I have a, hopefully, quick question with regards to my implementation of
Spamassassin.
In a nutshell it appears that Spamassassin is taking the time and energy to
check user-
unknown e-mail.
I am running Spamassassin 3.1.1
Attached is my sendmail log
On Wed, 3 May 2006 09:14:11 -0400, Thomas Deaton wrote
Is there any way to block this flood of html stock market spam?
thanks
Tom Deaton
Guilford County Information Services
Tom,
Assuming you are running SA - have you looked at the SARE community rules? The
SARE_STOCKS rule was
ALL_TRUSTED doesn't mean the host that handed you the mail is trusted.
It means *all* servers in the Received: chain are trusted.
So if servers A and B are trusted, but C is not...
A-B-You
would trigger all_trusted
C-B-You
would NOT trigger all_trusted
...even though
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:04:47 -0700, Matthew.van.Eerde wrote
David Flanigan wrote:
Since a inordinate % of spam seems to go through my secondary MX, I have
been
treating it as being outside of my trusted_network
Trusted means you trust it to tell the truth. Your secondary MX should
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:15:56 -0700, Matthew.van.Eerde wrote
You'll get better results by analyzing the hosts that talked to your
secondary
MX. The only way to analyze them is to believe the Received: headers added
by
your secondary MX. They only way to analyze those headers is to make
On Tue, 2 May 2006 22:20:16 0200, Michael Monnerie wrote
On Dienstag, 2. Mai 2006 18:57 David Flanigan wrote:
My secondary MX has only rudimentary anti-spam filtering, and I
thought SA was assuming it was safe if passed by that server.
It would be safer to turn it off completely. 2nd MX
Hello Spamasssins,
I am having an odd problem, I was hoping for some insight from those more
adept than
I.
I am trying to get Razor working with Spamassassin to little effect. To put it
simply,
SA never uses RAZOR, and I have never in thousands of messages
(http://www.flanigan.net/spam)
Theo,
Thanks for this. Now I feel stubid for bother the list. I have been running SA
for
some time, and didn't notice that change. My bad.
Thanks for the quick reply!
Dave
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:39:48 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:58:42AM -0400, David Flanigan
13 matches
Mail list logo
