On Thu, February 19, 2009 15:50, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn't be the 1st time)
read 25_uribl.cf (google.com is in there)
spamassassin 2>&1 -D -t spammsg | less
see skib domains
> header __NFheader ALL =~ /live\.com/i
> score __NFheader 0.1
> uri __NFuri /www
> Feel free to mangle it, I'd appreciate a copy of any wider ranging
> working versions though.
>
Here's what I've been using for quite a while. It was written when there
was a spate of spam punting LiveSpace websites:
header __MG_LSP1 From =~ /spaces\.live\.com/i
uri __MG_LSP2 /^http:.{1,
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 16:37 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Many thanks to all... I have the rule working. As usual it was a
> syntactical error (typo).
;) Good to see it fixed.
> uri __NFuri m{^https?\://www\.google\.com/groups?}i
Aha, so it's not m,groups/, with a trailing slash, as in your or
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:01:48 -0800 (PST), John Hardin
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>
>> Testing was done through spamassassin --lint and with debug. I used a
>> mail that *should* have hit the rules.
>
>--lint is not for testing rule performance, as it uses an
>internally-
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 14:50 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've written the following rule to deal with spam a particular set of
> users are getting hit by that very few of my rules are hitting.
>
> Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be
> ignored. It's
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Testing was done through spamassassin --lint and with debug. I used a
mail that *should* have hit the rules.
--lint is not for testing rule performance, as it uses an
internally-generated test message. It's just to check for syntax errors.
As has b
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 15:21 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:16:48 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn't be the 1st time)
> >
> > You're missing a lot of details. How do you test your rules? Try using
> > the -D debugging, to see if
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:16:48 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann
wrote:
>On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 14:50 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>
>> Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be
>> ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory.
>>
>> Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn't be th
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've written the following rule to deal with spam a particular set of
> users are getting hit by that very few of my rules are hitting.
>
> Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be
> ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory.
>
>
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 14:50 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be
> ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory.
>
> Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn't be the 1st time)
You're missing a lot of details. How do you test your rul
Hi All,
I've written the following rule to deal with spam a particular set of
users are getting hit by that very few of my rules are hitting.
Using --lint the rule come back clean but on testing it appears to be
ignored. It's in the spamassassin directory.
Am I missing something stupid? (Wouldn'
11 matches
Mail list logo
