New domain blacklist options available.

We heard you loud and clear, you wanted our enhanced blacklists in a similar archive/file structure as shallalist and urlblacklist for your web filtering platform, so we finally did it! Available now to all squidblacklist.org members is the new “Universal Archive Structure Format” for any

Re: I have some bad news

For what it's worth I have noticed that people who are familiar with Bayesian filtering seem to have a mental block when it comes to understanding this. People who know nothing about bayesian get it instantly. Here's the actual formula. card(Test_message intersect Spam diff Ham) minus

Re: I have some bad news

On 08/17/16 03:51, Antony Stone wrote: On Wednesday 17 August 2016 at 05:06:50, Marc Perkel wrote: What I'm doing is looking for fingerprints in email that intersect HAM and not in SPAM - which would be a HAM result. If it matches SPAM and does NOT match HAM - then it's SPAM. The magic is

Re: I have some bad news

On 08/17/16 03:43, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 16.08.16 20:06, Marc Perkel wrote: What I'm doing is looking for fingerprints in email that intersect HAM and not in SPAM - which would be a HAM result. If it matches SPAM and does NOT match HAM - then it's SPAM. The magic is in the NOT

Re: I have some bad news

I'm finding this discussion interesting, because I've been trying to wrap my head around the theoretical basis of this system. As such, I've noticed that several questions have been asked now that are explained in the document Marc initially pointed to

Re: I have some bad news

On Aug 17, 2016, at 3:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas > wrote: On 16.08.16 20:06, Marc Perkel wrote: What I'm doing is looking for fingerprints in email that intersect HAM and not in SPAM - which would be a HAM result. If it matches SPAM and does NOT

Re: connection refused resolving '166.170.166.108.bb.barracudacentral.org

On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 09:30 -0500, Chris wrote: > On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 13:03 +0100, RW wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:54:48 -0500 > > Chris wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spamd[7099]: spamd: connection from ip6-localhost [::1]:57298 to > > > port > > > 783, fd 5 > > > localhost

Re: DKIM Score

On 2016-08-16 13:57, RW wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:18:55 + Chris Lee wrote: Hi Merijn, Still digest your solution, look like it rather complex to me. Besides, it is possible to just whitelist or blacklist some email address for DKIM checking? You could do it like this:

Re: connection refused resolving '166.170.166.108.bb.barracudacentral.org

On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 13:03 +0100, RW wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:54:48 -0500 > Chris wrote: > > > > > > > spamd[7099]: spamd: connection from ip6-localhost [::1]:57298 to > > port > > 783, fd 5 > > localhost spamd[7099]: spamd: setuid to chris succeeded > > localhost spamd[7099]: spamd:

Re: new powerful plugin

Hi! W dniu 16.08.2016 o 17:36, Nicola Piazzi pisze: > It is difficoult to write a doc of what this plugin that I wrote do > But here is the ow.cf file, so you can see what this plugin do You didn't attach ow.(cf|pm). > It can be used ONLY when box is the same for send and receive emails > What

Re: connection refused resolving '166.170.166.108.bb.barracudacentral.org

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:54:48 -0500 Chris wrote: > > spamd[7099]: spamd: connection from ip6-localhost [::1]:57298 to port > 783, fd 5 > localhost spamd[7099]: spamd: setuid to chris succeeded > localhost spamd[7099]: spamd: processing message > for chris:1000  > localhost named[25689]:

Re: I have some bad news

On Wednesday 17 August 2016 at 05:06:50, Marc Perkel wrote: > What I'm doing is looking for fingerprints in email that intersect HAM > and not in SPAM - which would be a HAM result. > If it matches SPAM and does NOT match HAM - then it's SPAM. > > The magic is in the NOT matching on the other

Re: I have some bad news

On 16.08.16 20:06, Marc Perkel wrote: What I'm doing is looking for fingerprints in email that intersect HAM and not in SPAM - which would be a HAM result. If it matches SPAM and does NOT match HAM - then it's SPAM. The magic is in the NOT matching on the other side. so, if mail matches both