On 5-Aug-2009, at 02:15, a...@exys.org wrote:
The point is that scores below 2 are never spam,
Er... that's certainly not true.
--
*** AgentSmith sets mode: +m
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:37 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit?
in later mail you mention that you run SA before greylisting.
On
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.08.09 00:31, Martin Gregorie wrote:
If, for some (very) odd reason you run greylisting after SA then *of
course* your host has (a) seen the mail and (b) passed it through SA.
How else can the mail get to the greylister?
Would you care to explain why you
a...@exys.org wrote:
exactly. The point is that scores below 2 are never spam, so i avoid
greylisting. Thats my whitelist (you usually need for greylisting) at
the same time, since i whitelist some hosts in SA.
Interesting set-up, although I don't think it would be suitable for a
high-volume
On 05.08.09 00:31, Martin Gregorie wrote:
If, for some (very) odd reason you run greylisting after SA then *of
course* your host has (a) seen the mail and (b) passed it through SA.
How else can the mail get to the greylister?
Would you care to explain why you put a greylister behind SA? Do
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 22:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
turning off AWL and autolearn (optionally only when run at SMTP time) would
help you here. Although using such setup you loose much of advantages (like
AWL ;-) and especially personalising...
There are cases where AWL is a
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:15:00 +0200
a...@exys.org wrote:
2 to 5 is the sweetspot. That message in question actually proved it
is working, since the URIBL hits came later. Then it scores 10 so
it gets rejected.
I noticed earlier that you were greylisting for only 60s; that seems
like a
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit?
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:09 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never
(missing in your paste)
the received header was not missing. just stripped.
Received: from host231.dhms-domainmanagement.net ([91.199.51.231])
This assumption is wrong. You did receive a message from the From:
header address and the same originating
net-block in the past.
True I
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:18 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
This assumption is wrong. You did receive a message from the From:
header address and the same originating
net-block in the past.
Should I disable AWL, or can i
unlearn it?
Apparently you previously (maybe not this week)
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:18 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
(missing in your paste)
the received header was not missing. just stripped.
Please do not quote me out of context. I said From: header address
(missing in your paste). Inserted in the quote below where you ripped
it out.
This
Please do not quote me out of context.
Sorry. didnt find an apropriate way to respond to two statements in one
sentence.
Again, the greylisting prior to receiving this spam is not the reason.
SA, or more specifically AWL, does not know about that.
It is. I forgot to mention i run SA
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never received any
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:37 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit?
in later mail you mention that you run SA before greylisting.
If, for
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
drinking game?
For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
the days mail for spamassassin-users.
3 drinks - Poster believes
Anders Norrbring wrote:
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
drinking game?
For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
the days mail for spamassassin-users.
Matt Kettler skrev:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
drinking game?
For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
the days mail for
Matt Kettler wrote:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users mailing list
drinking game?
For those not familiar, when you get home for the evening, sit down,
with a beverage of your choice (milk, soda, coffee, wine, beer) and read
the days mail for
Title: RE: AWL confusion.. (drinking game)
I thought these two had made it into the Wiki :)
Its SATALK comedy gold!
-Original Message-
From: guenther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:52 PM
To: Craig Jackson
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re
I just got rediciously confused..
I sent a mail to myself, testing some stuff, and of course it's in the
same domain and network as the server.
I got:
9.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I just mess my
mind up?
--
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:51:14PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I just mess my
mind up?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
QOTD:
Talk about willing people... over half of them are
Anders Norrbring wrote:
I just got rediciously confused..
I sent a mail to myself, testing some stuff, and of course it's in the
same domain and network as the server.
I got:
9.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I
Anders Norrbring wrote:
I just got rediciously confused..
I sent a mail to myself, testing some stuff, and of course it's in the
same domain and network as the server.
I got:
9.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:51:14PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Shouldn't mail in the AWL get a *negative* score? Or did I just mess my
mind up?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
*sigh*.. do we really need to start a SpamAssassin-Users
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
if it's in a WL?
You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains
- Original Message -
From: Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto
white-list?
Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral
zero)
if it's in a WL?
I agree it's a very misleading term.
The easiest and most appropriate term I've heard is historical
averaging.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 7:51 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: AWL
Me new email host is using SA 3.0.1 and I have been watching what gets
caught and what doesn't so I can do some user_prefs tuning if necessary.
But I don't understand what is going on with this AWL stuff. The host
service has it turned on and I get a non-spam message with this score
report in
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
if it's in a WL?
You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains
31 matches
Mail list logo
