Sounds like a case of
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/187586
You might be able to find the rule mentioned here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
On 10 September 2014 07:38, Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com wrote:
I am helping a friend
On 09/10/2014 08:48 AM, Joolee wrote:
Sounds like a case of
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/187586
You might be able to find the rule mentioned here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/
RAND_HEADER_MANY
On 10 September 2014
something is here terrible wrong
why does average is preferred over excellent
why do H3 and H4 get a very less WL score?
recently a clear spam message slipped by the -1.7 through
describe RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 Average reputation (+2)
describe RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 Good reputation (+3)
describe
On 10.09.14 13:22, Reindl Harald wrote:
something is here terrible wrong
why does average is preferred over excellent
why do H3 and H4 get a very less WL score?
I'd say, it's because of number of spams/hams received from hosts there.
seems like only mail from hosts with average reputation
Am 10.09.2014 um 13:33 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 10.09.14 13:22, Reindl Harald wrote:
something is here terrible wrong
why does average is preferred over excellent
why do H3 and H4 get a very less WL score?
I'd say, it's because of number of spams/hams received from hosts there.
Hi. Here is my scenario:
Internet - MX (Postfix) - Relay (Postfix + Amavis with SpamAssassin) - Zimbra
In SpamAssassin, I have a whitelist/blacklist. All the e-mail passes
through, but Spams are taged (header and subject).
My problem is that when an e-mail comes to multiple destinations and
one
On Wednesday 10 September 2014 at 14:56:06 (EU time), M. Rodrigo Monteiro
wrote:
Hi. Here is my scenario:
Internet - MX (Postfix) - Relay (Postfix + Amavis with SpamAssassin) -
Zimbra
My problem is that when an e-mail comes to multiple destinations and
one of them is whitelisted, all
On 9/10/2014 8:56 AM, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
Hi. Here is my scenario:
Internet - MX (Postfix) - Relay (Postfix + Amavis with SpamAssassin) - Zimbra
In SpamAssassin, I have a whitelist/blacklist. All the e-mail passes
through, but Spams are taged (header and subject).
My problem is that
On Wednesday 10 September 2014 at 15:17:29 (EU time), Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/10/2014 8:56 AM, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
Hi. Here is my scenario:
Internet - MX (Postfix) - Relay (Postfix + Amavis with SpamAssassin) -
Zimbra
In SpamAssassin, I have a whitelist/blacklist. All
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:56:06 -0300
M. Rodrigo Monteiro fale...@rodrigomonteiro.net wrote:
My problem is that when an e-mail comes to multiple destinations and
one of them is whitelisted, all these destinations becomes whitelisted
too.
There are really only two ways to get around this, and
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far no more false negatives have been
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
I am helping a friend who is getting hit with a lot of spam. He is
running SpamAssassin. While looking at the spam that he is receiving
I am seeing a pattern in the headers. Along with the normal headers
the messages also contain a random set of random
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.09.14 13:22, Reindl Harald wrote:
something is here terrible wrong
why does average is preferred over excellent
why do H3 and H4 get a very less WL score?
I'd say, it's because of number of spams/hams received from hosts there.
seems
2014-09-10 10:23 GMT-03:00 David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com:
Option 2 is to accept the message unfiltered, split it into multiple copies,
and remail each copy so it can be scanned per-recipient. This avoids
the delay, but it also means you cannot reject spam with a 5xx SMTP failure
code
2014-09-10 10:17 GMT-03:00 Antony Stone
antony.st...@spamassassin.open.source.it:
On Wednesday 10 September 2014 at 14:56:06 (EU time), M. Rodrigo Monteiro
wrote:
Hi. Here is my scenario:
Internet - MX (Postfix) - Relay (Postfix + Amavis with SpamAssassin) -
Zimbra
My problem is that when
On 9/10/2014 9:47 AM, Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:59:16 -0300
M. Rodrigo Monteiro fale...@rodrigomonteiro.net wrote:
Option 2 is to accept the message unfiltered, split it into
multiple copies, and remail each copy so it can be scanned
per-recipient.
How can I do it?
It depends on the MTA you're using. If you use
On 09/10/2014 04:05 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/10/2014 9:47 AM, Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
Hi,
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far no more false negatives have been learnt as ham which is
was hoping for.
If you're using autolearn, you may want to play with that threshold..
Based on your expertise with Bayes, should we change the
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
something is here terrible wrong
why does average is preferred over excellent
why do H3 and H4 get a very less WL score?
recently a clear spam message slipped by the -1.7 through
describe RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2
On 09/10/2014 04:29 PM, Alex Regan wrote:
Hi,
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far no more false negatives have been learnt as ham which is
was hoping for.
If you're using autolearn, you may want to play with that threshold..
Based on your
Am 10.09.2014 um 16:50 schrieb Jose Borges Ferreira:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
something is here terrible wrong
why does average is preferred over excellent
why do H3 and H4 get a very less WL score?
recently a clear spam message
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 10.09.2014 um 16:50 schrieb Jose Borges Ferreira:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
something is here terrible wrong
why does average is preferred over excellent
why do H3 and H4 get a very less WL
On 9/5/2014 2:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Hi
i got recently a clear spam message which would have
a score of 6.9 but RP_MATCHES_RCVD removed 1.7 points
is that not a little too much?
This has been a problem for about 6 months now.
I complained about it back in April 2014, and there was
Is there any reason you should not use MSPIKE in versions older than
3.4.0?
Eg. on debian box with 3.3.2, I have 20_mailspike.cf; I commented the
version check out, tested that spamassassin --lint was happy, recompiled
rules and I now have MSPIKE rules hitting. Am I missing something? Or
is
Is there a good discussion on how rule priority works, and short-circuited
evaluation, etc?
I must be looking in the wrong places because I can’t find much. I found
register_method_priority() in ::Plugin but I wasn’t sure if that’s all there
is… It only seems to be called in
On 9/10/2014 12:59 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
Is there any reason you should not use MSPIKE in versions older than
3.4.0?
Eg. on debian box with 3.3.2, I have 20_mailspike.cf; I commented the
version check out, tested that spamassassin --lint was happy, recompiled
rules and I now have MSPIKE rules
On Sep 10, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
Any reason you chose -1.0 rather than something a bit closer to 0, like -0.5 or
-0.2? Most of my low-scoring spam is pretty close to 0, so I'm just
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I ask because I’m trying to address this comment:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7060#c10
This might be better on the dev list.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 13:10 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/10/2014 12:59 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
Is there any reason you should not use MSPIKE in versions older than
3.4.0?
Eg. on debian box with 3.3.2, I have 20_mailspike.cf; I commented the
version check out, tested that
On 9/10/2014 1:36 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
Would you consider changing the version check in official
20_mailspike.cf to allow 3.3.2 to use those by default?
Jesse,
For me, I am neutral on the matter as my energies are focused on 3.4.1
to release on 9/30.
But this will need 3 explicit +1's
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:47:48 +0200
Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
Hi,
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
Any reason you chose -1.0 rather than something a bit closer to 0,
like -0.5 or -0.2? Most of my low-scoring spam is pretty close to 0,
so I'm just wondering.
I know I made the decision years ago to lower it to
John Hardin wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Is there a way to use this to create a SpamAssassin rule to try to
catch this type of spam?
Grab the RAND_HEADER rules (there are several related, get them all) from my
sandbox and score as you see fit.
Ah... Already discussed earlier. Sorry for not
Hi,
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far no more false negatives have been learnt as ham which is
was hoping for.
If you're using
http://qz.com/263013/for-390-you-can-buy-a-harvard-email-account-on-chinas-biggest-online-marketplace/
Most of the article is off topic, but I liked the mention of being able
to buy *.edu email addresses. We see them from time to time, especially
Harvard, and it always makes me wonder how much
On 09/10/2014 08:23 PM, RW wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:47:48 +0200
Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
On 10. sep. 2014 19.58.18 Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
I will say, I don't know how long sa-update will work for 3.3.2.
Eventually, we have to move on and not support old releases though right
now the status quo of trying our best is ok.
3.3.2 is still latest stable in gentoo, i
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:57:35 +0200
Axb wrote:
In practice this means that, without custom rules, ham can only be
autolearned if it hits a DNS whitelist rule or RP_MATCHES_RCVD.
from what I'm seeing is that it takes lower scored ham to autolearn
ham. I don't use DNS whitelists and
Hi,
I'm calling spamc (3.3.2) from procmail as suggested at
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UsedViaProcmail
Having made a change to not use the lockfile (as suggsted in another
thread) I'm now getting the following error in my procmail log:
procmail: Program failure (69) of spamc
2014-09-10 23:25 Geoff Soper wrote:
Hi,
I'm calling spamc (3.3.2) from procmail as suggested at
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UsedViaProcmail
Having made a change to not use the lockfile (as suggsted in another
thread) I'm now getting the following error in my procmail log:
procmail:
41 matches
Mail list logo
