On 16-Nov-2009, at 07:00, Justin Mason wrote:
> First -- my name is not Jim. Secondly -- I don't care what Spamhaus
> does, I'm asking what you suggest SpamAssassin do to measure FPs.
Thirdly, don't TOFU post (at least twice as bad as Top-posting).
--
May the forces of evil become confused on
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 14:00 +, Justin Mason wrote:
> First -- my name is not Jim. Secondly -- I don't care what Spamhaus
> does, I'm asking what you suggest SpamAssassin do to measure FPs.
Is that a core feature of spamassassin Just in? Is it necessary to have
that data? Will 'Hey, I noticed
First -- my name is not Jim. Secondly -- I don't care what Spamhaus
does, I'm asking what you suggest SpamAssassin do to measure FPs.
--j.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:00, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 20:34 +, Justin Mason wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:53, rich
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
You neglected to trim my name from your post making it look like the
hrmm... that is not how alpine showed it...
That said {don't you just lurvvee net policemen} I do have to laugh that
the BRBL has mysql.com listed, given it sits at the he
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:21 +1000, Res wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> safe. BRBL has a high hit rate as well, with a moderate safety rating.
>
> Wondered why i wasn't getting anything from mysql.com for over a week,
> BRBL has them listed :)
>
You neglecte
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
safe. BRBL has a high hit rate as well, with a moderate safety rating.
Wondered why i wasn't getting anything from mysql.com for over a week,
BRBL has them listed :)
--
Res
"What does Windows have that Linux doesn't?" - One hell of a lot
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 20:34 +, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:53, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
> >> Co
On 11/15/2009 03:36 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE
12.8342% 0.0021% 0.94 RCVD_IN_PSBL *
12.3053% 0.0026% 0.94 RCVD_IN_XBL
31.2499% 0.0827% 0.87 RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL *2
80.2578% 0.1485% 0.86 RCVD_IN_PBL
27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK
> SPAM% HAM% RANK RULE
> 12.8342% 0.0021% 0.94 RCVD_IN_PSBL *
> 12.3053% 0.0026% 0.94 RCVD_IN_XBL
> 31.2499% 0.0827% 0.87 RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL *2
> 80.2578% 0.1485% 0.86 RCVD_IN_PBL
> 27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
> 19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK *
> 90.9360% 0.3854% 0.77 RCVD_
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:53, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
>> Compare this report to a similar report last month.
>>
>> http://wi
On 11/15/2009 11:00 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below
Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below are only as good as the data submitted by
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>>> ===
>>> HOSTKARMA_BL much better as URIBL
>>> ===
>>> SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE
>>> 68.3651% 0.2806% 0.79 URIBL_HOSTKARMA_BL *
>
> How do you check return values? There i
Hi!
27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK *
90.9360% 0.3854% 0.77 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT
13.0564% 0.4838% 0.67 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL *
* It is clear that the two main blacklists are Spamhaus and BRBL. The
Zen combinatoin of Spamhaus zones is extremely ef
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
> Compare this report to a similar report last month.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
> The results below are
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below are only as good as the data submitted by nightly
masscheck volunte
16 matches
Mail list logo
