On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:57:56 +1100
Andrew Cowie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [I wonder how many people are spam blocking this thread? :)]
I got:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=2.63
on your mail, so you needn't worry, I guess. :) Although I'm n
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 04:28, Diego Zamboni wrote:
> - Long sequences of random dictionary words in their messages, which
> perhaps make it look more "normal" to filters.
I use bogofilter (a bayesian filter [only]). When the
heap-of-random-dictionary-words technique cropped up, I was really
worried
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Dacey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SpamAssassin not as good as before :(
> I'm running courier-imap on my box and have spamassassin move
> Did so many spammers changed their spam technics? What could be done (if
> possible only with SA's help) to reach my hit rate of 99% again? An update
> to SA version 2.60 did not change anything :(
I noticed the same starting some time ago (1-2 months as well). I think
spammers have started us
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SpamAssassin not as good as before :(
> Now four or five are slipping through a day. The only thing I
Thanks for the replies, I will check through your suggested web pages
now
Greetings, Matthias
--
First Bush invades my home turf, then he takes my pals, then he makes fun
of the way I talk -- probably -- now he steals my right to raise a
disobedient, smart-alecky son! Well, that's it!
Matthias F. Brandstetter wrote:
Hi all SpamAssassin users!
I am using SA since some months now and never had to look back. It filtered
around 98-99% of all spam mails out. But since one or two months, I would
say the false negative rate is around 30%, but I do not have any idea why
this could b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Hi all SpamAssassin users!
>
> I am using SA since some months now and never had to look back. It
> filtered
> around 98-99% of all spam mails out. But since one or two months, I would
> say the false negative rate is around 30%, but I do not have an
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 16:16 CET Matthias F. Brandstetter wrote:
> Did so many spammers changed their spam technics? What could be done (if
> possible only with SA's help) to reach my hit rate of 99% again? An
> update to SA version 2.60 did not change anything :(
Yes, they did change their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:16:24 +0100
"Matthias F. Brandstetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all SpamAssassin users!
>
> I am using SA since some months now and never had to look back. It filtered
> around 98-99% of all spam mails out. But since on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 17:16, Matthias F. Brandstetter wrote:
> Did so many spammers changed their spam technics? What could be done (if
> possible only with SA's help) to reach my hit rate of 99% again? An update
> to SA version 2.60 did not cha
Hi all SpamAssassin users!
I am using SA since some months now and never had to look back. It filtered
around 98-99% of all spam mails out. But since one or two months, I would
say the false negative rate is around 30%, but I do not have any idea why
this could be.
On another SA installation w
12 matches
Mail list logo
