Title: RE: sis620 (was: [Xpert]*SPAM*)
have you already tried updating to XFree86 4.2.0
and then running as root the xf86config program?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 14:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
The 620 is - as regards the VGA part - compatible to the 530. As far as
I know, the 530 (thus the 620) were supported by 4.1 already. 4.3 will
bring many enhancements, among others Xv for these old chips.
Thomas
Andy Isaacson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 08:28:05AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 08:28:05AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SPAM: NO_REAL_NAME (-0.3 points) From: does not include a real name
You should configure your software to have a real name in the mail
headers, and include a useful subject on further mailing list posts.
This would help you
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 10:06:26PM +, John Gay wrote:
On Mon 23 Dec 2002 22:10, you wrote:
-- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original
message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar
unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
[Luca Olivetti]:
Ed Anuff wrote:
SPAM: RCVD_IN_RELAYS_ORDB_ORG (0.6 points) RBL: Received via a relay in
relays.ordb.org
SPAM:[RBL check: found 5.226.180.66.relays.ordb.org.]
$ telnet 66.180.226.5 smtp
Trying 66.180.226.5...
Connected to
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Confirmed once more: black lists are unreliable, useless against
spam and harmful to legitimate email.
don't be naive. my own email server was listed in ORDB since it
allowed
user%domain@mydomain@
duh
$ telnet 66.180.226.5 smtp
Trying 66.180.226.5...
Luca Olivetti wrote:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Confirmed once more: black lists are unreliable, useless against
spam and harmful to legitimate email.
don't be naive. my own email server was listed in ORDB since it
allowed
user%domain@mydomain@
duh
I take my words back:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, James Hawtin wrote:
Could it be setup so subscribed users never be counted as spam? Just in
case the RBL is wrong.
Sounds like a good idea (although some spammers will just subscribe).
However I can't see a way of stopping a spammer from sending mail
as a subscriber,
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to
have a rather high false-positive rate.
Whether it's appropriate for the xpert list to partipcate in the
social pressure aspect of DNSBLs (RBL is a trademark
Could it be setup so subscribed users never be counted as spam? Just in
case the RBL is wrong.
James
___
Xpert mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spam only works because its one-to-many. Forcing a confirmation requires
many-to-one and will collapse a spam server (or be ignored, either way you
win). In addition, adding a two-way element avoids all the ethical issues
of blacklists. If
Title: RE: [OFFTOPIC] spam scoring (was: [Xpert]*SPAM* Extracting a KeySym from an action routine)
Then why not simply use an email confirmation like is used
for verifying
subscription and then cache the address for n days (where n
is 30 or so)
if the response comes back
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, David Dawes wrote:
I'm not particularly interested in using these lists to apply social
pressure. I'm only interested in a mechanism that provides an acceptably
low level of spam without imposing subscriber-only posting restrictions.
Then why not simply use an email
Title: RE: [OFFTOPIC] spam scoring (was: [Xpert]*SPAM* Extracting a KeySym from an action routine)
Sorry, the ends don't justify the means. False positives punish
the ISP customer, who still has to pay her monthly/weekly/per-byte
fees, whether the ISP fixes the problem or not. I
Alexander Stohr wrote:
a moderated spam filter would be nicest, but this means that
someone has permanent duty for letting falsely blocked mail pass,
This is not quite true. I can envision a system that automatically quarantines
(rather than discarding) suspected spam. It would then send
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:56:56PM +, Bruce M Beach wrote:
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:45:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hmm, so we have 3 pieces of evidence that it isn't spam, four that it
is (all of which are from blacklists), the blacklist scores were enough
to get the message scored as spam, and yet it wasn't spam.
Are we sure we want to be
Around 14 o'clock on Nov 26, David Dawes wrote:
All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to the
number of valid positives. I need to assess now many valid positives
were attributable to the RBL
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Around 14 o'clock on Nov 26, David Dawes wrote:
All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to the
number of valid positives. I need to
En/na David Dawes ha escrit:
All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to
Zero false positives is the only acceptable result, if you're using it
to discard email.
You won't get that with any of
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to
have a rather high false-positive rate.
Whether it's appropriate for the xpert list to partipcate in the
social pressure aspect of DNSBLs (RBL is a trademark
En/na [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrit:
should/could be to deal with the spam problem? Or perhaps the sending
IP is a subscriber IP of some sort. They should be using their ISP
assigned mail exchanger.
Just because some antispam nazi says so?
No thank you, I'm perfectly capable to manage my mail
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:30:51 +0100
Luca Olivetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En/na David Dawes ha escrit:
All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to
Zero false positives is the only acceptable
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:00:16PM +, John Tapsell wrote:
well, if it works - then good! Hopefully it will piss off the customers
enough that they'll go to another isp, or the isp will sort it out. If a
customer cares enough about his email, he'll use a more ethical isp.
[veering
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:00:16PM +, John Tapsell wrote:
well, if it works - then good! Hopefully it will piss off the customers
enough that they'll go to another isp, or the isp will sort it out. If a
customer cares enough about his email, he'll use a more ethical isp.
Wow, you live
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:39:11PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to
have a rather high false-positive rate.
Whether it's appropriate for the xpert list to
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
I think XFree's spam assasin filter might just be a bit trigger happy -
I decoded the attached message and it is a valid question for XFree.
Hua zhang, if you are reading this - set your mailer to generate plain
text, rather than MIME encoding it. That should get your below the
thresholds.
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content
41 matches
Mail list logo
