spamassassin-users  

Messages by Thread

• • Re: AWL headache... Kris Deugau
  • Re: AWL headache... E. Falk
  • Re: AWL headache... E. Falk
  • Re: AWL headache... Kris Deugau
• RE: Does anyone have a rule for this kind of thing Matt Linzbach
  • RE: Does anyone have a rule for this kind of thing Chris Santerre
• spam block no To:user? Dave Stern - Former Rocket Scientist
  • RE: spam block no To:user? Matthew.van.Eerde
  • Re: spam block no To:user? Kris Deugau
• Confused over Sorbs Ron McKeating
  • Re: Confused over Sorbs John Andersen
  • Re: Confused over Sorbs Jeff Chan
  • Re: Confused over Sorbs Matt Kettler
• Statistical methods for determining spam authorship (fwd) jm
  • Re: Statistical methods for determining spam authorship (fwd) John Andersen
  • Re: Statistical methods for determining spam authorship (fwd) Justin Mason
• notes from CEAS Justin Mason
  • Does anyone have a rule for this kind of thing Amnon
• Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Daulton, Douglas
  • Re: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Jeff Chan
  • Re: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Justin Mason
  • Re: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" John Andersen
  • RE: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Chris Santerre
  • RE: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Kenneth Porter
  • Re: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" LuKreme
  • RE: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Daulton, Douglas
  • Re: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" John Andersen
  • Re: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Keith C. Ivey
  • Re: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" LuKreme
  • RE: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Kenneth Porter
  • RE: Syncing domains in email to prevent being seen as "phishing" Daulton, Douglas
• [slightly OT] spam storms? Chris Santerre
  • RE: [slightly OT] spam storms? Chris Santerre
• header and body score David Jiménez Domínguez
• make tests fail Anne Ramey
  • Re: make tests fail Matt Kettler
  • Re: make tests fail Anne Ramey
  • Re: make tests fail Matt Kettler
  • Re: make tests fail Anne Ramey
• SpamCopURI "make test" errors up
  • Re: SpamCopURI "make test" errors Jim Maul
  • Re: SpamCopURI "make test" errors Bob McClure Jr
  • Re: SpamCopURI "make test" errors up
  • Re: SpamCopURI "make test" errors Matt Kettler
• SA 2.63 no longer using user_prefs file Dave Goodrich
  • Re: SA 2.63 no longer using user_prefs file Dave Goodrich
• Compile errors with version 2.63 Tim Faircloth
  • Re: Compile errors with version 2.63 Alex S Moore
  • Re: Compile errors with version 2.63 Theo Van Dinter
  • Re: Compile errors with version 2.63 Tim Faircloth
  • Re: Compile errors with version 2.63 Tim Faircloth
  • Re: Compile errors with version 2.63 Albert Whale
• Re: Detecting Phishers is not working. Albert Whale
  • Re: Detecting Phishers is not working. Jeff Chan
  • Re: Detecting Phishers is not working. David Hooton
• Why only 2.3? Asif Iqbal
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Duncan Hill
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Jeff Chan
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Jeff Chan
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Asif Iqbal
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Jeff Chan
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Duncan Hill
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Jeff Chan
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Bob Apthorpe
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Duncan Hill
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Scot L. Harris
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Duncan Hill
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Asif Iqbal
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Daniel Quinlan
  • RE: Why only 2.3? Bret Miller
  • RE: Why only 2.3? Daniel Quinlan
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Jeff Chan
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Asif Iqbal
  • Re: Why only 2.3? Steve Bertrand
  • RE: Why only 2.3? Chris Santerre
• What's all this about? Dougie Nisbet
  • Re: What's all this about? Justin Mason
• networked spam tests - network intensive Harry Putnam
  • Re: networked spam tests - network intensive Alan Baxter
  • Re: networked spam tests - network intensive Nels Lindquist
  • RE: networked spam tests - network intensive Chris Santerre
• more are more junk getting through Thomas Kinghorn
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Duncan Hill
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Sandy S
  • Re[2]: more are more junk getting through Robert Menschel
  • Re: Re[2]: more are more junk getting through Sandy S
  • Is something wrong with our Bayes? Amnon
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Marc Kool
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Jim Maul
  • RE: more are more junk getting through Chris Santerre
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Marc Kool
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Steve Prior
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Scot L. Harris
  • Re: more are more junk getting through LuKreme
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Marc Kool
  • Re: more are more junk getting through jdow
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Marc Kool
  • RE: more are more junk getting through Scot L. Harris
  • RE: more are more junk getting through Ryan Thompson
  • RE: more are more junk getting through Scot L. Harris
  • RE: more are more junk getting through Kurt Buff
  • RE: more are more junk getting through Jim Maul
  • Re: more are more junk getting through jdow
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Jim Maul
  • Re: more are more junk getting through Dougie Nisbet
  • RE: more are more junk getting through Kurt Buff
• basic bayes .. new use Harry Putnam
  • Re: basic bayes .. new use Matt Kettler
• SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Justin Mason
  • Re: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Jeff Chan
  • Re: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Martin
  • Re: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Michael W Cocke
  • Re: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Andy Jezierski
  • RE: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book David Groce
  • Re: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Michael W Cocke
  • Re: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book LuKreme
  • RE: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Martin Devall
  • RE: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Chris Santerre
  • RE: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Steve Dimoff
  • RE: SpamAssassin -- the O'Reilly book Chris Santerre
• rewrite_header not working Steve Suhre
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Mike Burger
  • rewrite_header not working Steve Suhre
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Theo Van Dinter
  • Re: rewrite_header not working LuKreme
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Steve Suhre
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Matt Kettler
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Steve Suhre
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Ryan Thompson
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Steve Suhre
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Ryan Thompson
  • Re: rewrite_header not working Steve Suhre
• Why is there no BAYES_ score? Jim Maul
  • RE: Why is there no BAYES_ score? Roedel, Mark
  • RE: Why is there no BAYES_ score? Jim Maul
  • RE: Why is there no BAYES_ score? Matthew.van.Eerde
  • RE: Why is there no BAYES_ score? Jim Maul
  • RE: Why is there no BAYES_ score? Pierre Thomson
  • RE: Why is there no BAYES_ score? RPICKERING
• sample scoring zero Pierre Thomson
  • Re: sample scoring zero Matt Kettler
  • Re: sample scoring zero Ryan Thompson
  • Re: sample scoring zero Ryan Thompson
  • RE: sample scoring zero Matt Linzbach
  • RE: sample scoring zero Jim Maul
  • RE: sample scoring zero Pierre Thomson
  • RE: sample scoring zero Matt Kettler
  • RE: sample scoring zero Chris Santerre
• RE: Increase this weekend? Pierre Thomson
  • RE: Re[2]: Increase this weekend? Dan Kohn
• Announce DomSpamC beta! Nico . Prenzel
  • Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Ralph Seichter
  • Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Alan Baxter
  • Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Ralph Seichter
  • Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Fred
  • Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Ralph Seichter
  • Antwort: Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Nico . Prenzel
  • Antwort: Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Nico . Prenzel
  • Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Andy Jezierski
  • Antwort: Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Nico . Prenzel
  • Re: Announce DomSpamC beta! Nico . Prenzel
• No SURBL entries in logs? Johann Spies
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Jeff Chan
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Johann Spies
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Johann Spies
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Jeff Chan
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Johann Spies
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Ryan Thompson
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Johann Spies
  • RE: No SURBL entries in logs? Chris Santerre
  • Re: No SURBL entries in logs? Johann Spies
• SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Dimitrios
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Daniel Quinlan
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Dimitrios
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! LuKreme
  • RE: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Solutions
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! nadim
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! John Andersen
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! D.J.
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Dimitrios
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! LuKreme
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Michele Neylon : Blacknight Solutions
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Andy Jezierski
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Justin Mason
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Theo Van Dinter
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Dimitrios
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Marc Kool
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Nancy McGough
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Kelson Vibber
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Scott Blomquist
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! jdow
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Steven Dickenson
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! LuKreme
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Daniel Quinlan
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Dimitrios
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! jdow
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Dimitrios
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! Jonathan Nichols
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! LuKreme
  • Re: SA Logo Contest !! AMAZING!! John Andersen

• Earlier messages
• Later messages