Re: Abused accounts

That is a little different. Google makes it clear to colleges and universities that their mail system is not to be used for HIPAA stuff there is no guarantee of privacy. This is different than a run-of-the-mill class. There are legal restrictions in place on medical communications and in

Re: Abused accounts

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:47:51 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > On 3/15/2016 5:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > > > a lot of nosense > > > > * nobody is talking about throw away *any* other rules > > Uh, why yes, they are: > > "Some other systems such as isnotspam.com caught some SA rule

Re: Abused accounts

On 2016-03-15 14:15, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: I agree with you on that one. There's a big push among colleges to push students to use their "blessed" mailsystems. They don't want students emailing instructors from the student's gmail account, they want the students emailing the instructors

Re: Abused accounts

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: On 3/15/2016 6:26 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > we have scripts checking any samples against current bayes > > classification and ignore them if they already have BAYES_99, > > Is this even

Re: Abused accounts

Am 16.03.2016 um 03:33 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: On 3/15/2016 6:26 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: we have scripts checking any samples against current bayes classification and ignore them if they already have BAYES_99, Is this even necessary? I thought

Re: Abused accounts

Am 16.03.2016 um 02:26 schrieb John Hardin: On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: we have scripts checking any samples against current bayes classification and ignore them if they already have BAYES_99, Is this even necessary? I thought the learner automatically rejected

Re: Abused accounts

Am 16.03.2016 um 02:14 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: On 3/15/2016 2:48 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.03.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: Baloney - spamoney!!! I do not use autolearning, and ALL my spam is either hand-selected or it comes from honeypot addresses that have NEVER been

Re: Abused accounts

On 3/15/2016 6:26 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: we have scripts checking any samples against current bayes classification and ignore them if they already have BAYES_99, Is this even necessary? I thought the learner automatically rejected everything

Re: Abused accounts

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: we have scripts checking any samples against current bayes classification and ignore them if they already have BAYES_99, Is this even necessary? I thought the learner automatically rejected everything already tagged. Already *learned*. There's

Re: Abused accounts

On 3/15/2016 2:48 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.03.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: Baloney - spamoney!!! I do not use autolearning, and ALL my spam is either hand-selected or it comes from honeypot addresses that have NEVER been on my domains - I get these honeypot addresses by

Re: Abused accounts

On 3/15/2016 5:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: a lot of nosense * nobody is talking about throw away *any* other rules Uh, why yes, they are: "Some other systems such as isnotspam.com caught some SA rule which DOESENT EXIST ANYMORE in latest SA." sure seems like SOMEONE IS talking about

Re: Abused accounts

Am 15.03.2016 um 22:15 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: It's foolish to throw away working rulesets and put all your eggs in the Bayes basket. Bayes is not a panacea. I kind of feel there is a NIH mentality among the spamassassin maintainers when it comes to rulesets a lot of nosense * nobody is

Re: Abused accounts

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:15:53 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > It's foolish to throw away working rulesets and put all your eggs in > the Bayes basket. Bayes is not a panacea. I kind of feel there is a > NIH mentality among the spamassassin maintainers when it comes to > rulesets - it's like "we

Re: Abused accounts

Am 15.03.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: Baloney - spamoney!!! I do not use autolearning, and ALL my spam is either hand-selected or it comes from honeypot addresses that have NEVER been on my domains - I get these honeypot addresses by scanning the mail log and looking for guesses by

Fwd: Re: Abused accounts

Baloney - spamoney!!! I do not use autolearning, and ALL my spam is either hand-selected or it comes from honeypot addresses that have NEVER been on my domains - I get these honeypot addresses by scanning the mail log and looking for guesses by spammers - when I see a popular address in the

Re: Abused accounts

On 3/15/2016 2:01 PM, David B Funk wrote: IE, out of the 130KB of that message, only a few dozen bytes is actually the spam 'payload' and thus Bayes wise gets swamped by the O365 noise. I'm considering tagging most of the O365 headers with bayes_ignore_header. Anybody else wrestling with

Re: Abused accounts

Am 15.03.2016 um 22:01 schrieb David B Funk: Actually this is one case where Bayes may not be a help. Our campus recently outsourced almost all users to O365. As a consequence our Bayes gets a -lot- of ham from O365 and therefore has most of its fingerprints tagged as ham. Thus it takes a very

Re: Abused accounts

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Kris Deugau wrote: Robert Boyl wrote: Hi, everyone Please check http://pastebin.com/GUBqpyZ8 Interesting how some spams that abuse some legit account such as this one are hard to detect, how Spamassassin scores almost nothing although there are spammy works, etc. System

Re: Abused accounts

-- Charles Sprickman NetEng/SysAdmin Bway.net - New York's Best Internet www.bway.net sp...@bway.net - 212.982.9800 > On Mar 15, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 15.03.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Boyl: >> Hi, everyone >> >> Please check

Re: Abused accounts

Am 15.03.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Boyl: Hi, everyone Please check http://pastebin.com/GUBqpyZ8 Interesting how some spams that abuse some legit account such as this one are hard to detect, how Spamassassin scores almost nothing although there are spammy works, etc. System caught

Re: Abused accounts

Robert Boyl wrote: > Hi, everyone > > Please check http://pastebin.com/GUBqpyZ8 > > Interesting how some spams that abuse some legit account such as this > one are hard to detect, how Spamassassin scores almost nothing although > there are spammy works, etc. System caught DCC_CHECK 1.10. > >