Am 19.09.2014 um 14:42 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
> On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 13:47 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Most DNSBL tests are done on the last relay into the internal network.
>>>
>>> I'm not say this should be done, I'm saying that it's one reason why
>>> scanning mailing list can be more t
RW> A lot of people don't put mailing lists through Spamassassin, most
RW> of them have already been spam filtered, and to get the best results
RW> you have to extend your internal network and maintain it.
Matus> no... they do not filter mail from mailing lists through SA. it
Matus> is setting
On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 13:47 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.09.2014 um 13:44 schrieb RW:
> > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:09:23 -0700
> > Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:43:49 +0100,
> >> RW wrote:
> >>
> >> RW> A lot of people don't put mailing lists through Spamassassin, most
Am 19.09.2014 um 13:44 schrieb RW:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:09:23 -0700
> Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:43:49 +0100,
>> RW wrote:
>>
>> RW> A lot of people don't put mailing lists through Spamassassin, most
>> RW> of them have already been spam filtered, and to get the best
>>
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:09:23 -0700
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:43:49 +0100,
> RW wrote:
>
> RW> A lot of people don't put mailing lists through Spamassassin, most
> RW> of them have already been spam filtered, and to get the best
> RW> results you have to extend your internal n
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:37:45 +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
RW> A lot of people don't put mailing lists through Spamassassin, most
RW> of them have already been spam filtered, and to get the best results
RW> you have to extend your internal network and maintain it.
Ian> Do you mean the "tr
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:43:49 +0100, RW wrote:
RW> A lot of people don't put mailing lists through Spamassassin, most
RW> of them have already been spam filtered, and to get the best results
RW> you have to extend your internal network and maintain it.
On 18.09.14 22:09, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
D
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:43:49 +0100,
RW wrote:
RW> A lot of people don't put mailing lists through Spamassassin, most
RW> of them have already been spam filtered, and to get the best results
RW> you have to extend your internal network and maintain it.
Do you mean the "trusted_networks" setting h
Am 17.09.2014 um 23:51 schrieb RW:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:24:10 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> please read my previous message
>>
>> what i asked is careful considered and exactly what i need
>> even if you could reach something similar with other ways
>> because the admin backend needs to be u
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:24:10 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> please read my previous message
>
> what i asked is careful considered and exactly what i need
> even if you could reach something similar with other ways
> because the admin backend needs to be understood by other
> persons too and final
Am 17.09.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Axb:
> On 09/17/2014 04:27 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
>
>
>>Just a thought - maybe a config setting to not do automatic bayes
>> training for a give from/to addr would be more appropriate? Say a meta
>> rule (more a "flag" but I don't know enough SA rules to kno
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 16:47 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 04:27 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
>
>
>
> >Just a thought - maybe a config setting to not do automatic bayes
> > training for a give from/to addr would be more appropriate? Say a meta
> > rule (more a "flag" but I don't know enough S
On 09/17/2014 04:27 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
Just a thought - maybe a config setting to not do automatic bayes
training for a give from/to addr would be more appropriate? Say a meta
rule (more a "flag" but I don't know enough SA rules to know if those
exist) that you set in your own rules.
Am 17.09.2014 um 16:27 schrieb Jesse Norell:
> On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 14:54 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 14:43 schrieb RW:
>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
>>> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
both - FROM and TO ju
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 14:54 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 17.09.2014 um 14:43 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >> what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
> >> both - FROM and TO just because it makes sense to handle
> >> some mai
Am 17.09.2014 um 14:43 schrieb RW:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
>> both - FROM and TO just because it makes sense to handle
>> some mailing lists different without whitelist them completly
>> and the same
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
> both - FROM and TO just because it makes sense to handle
> some mailing lists different without whitelist them completly
> and the same for different RCPT, one user is living in asi
Am 17.09.2014 um 11:31 schrieb Axb:
> On 09/17/2014 10:51 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> for some mailing-lists a "more_spam_from" would make
>> sense instead whitelist a sender- is there a rule i
>> don't see or has somebody a working one for "local.cf"?
>>
>> honestly i would like to have
On 09/17/2014 10:51 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Hi
for some mailing-lists a "more_spam_from" would make
sense instead whitelist a sender- is there a rule i
don't see or has somebody a working one for "local.cf"?
honestly i would like to have 4 options depending
on sender or RCPT
* more_spam (-2)
Hi
for some mailing-lists a "more_spam_from" would make
sense instead whitelist a sender- is there a rule i
don't see or has somebody a working one for "local.cf"?
honestly i would like to have 4 options depending
on sender or RCPT
* more_spam (-2)
* most_spam (-4)
* lot_of_spam (-6)
* all_spam
20 matches
Mail list logo
