I have already deactivated Spamcop...should I just leave it that way..I have
seen where spamcop caught some pretty nasty email..but the declude may have
caught it anyway...
Richard Farris
Ethixs Online
1.270.247. Office
1.800.548.3877 Tech Support
Crossroads to a Cleaner Internet
-
Richard,
Last I checked, SpamCop was tagging about 50% of all of my spam, and
while it certainly isn't perfect, it doesn't tag IP's that are perfectly
clean. It is somewhat doubtful that one could remove SpamCop and not
see more spam leakage. As a Declude user, I think that you might want
For me this month spamcop has been correct 99.3% of the time.
It has detected about 45% of all spams.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Farris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop
I have
For my system I would not deactivate it, but the weight assigned to it is
not very much. It's a good test when used in a well structured weighting
system.
Darrell
DLAnalyzer - Comprehensive reporting on Declude Junkmail
Hi all
I'm suffering with a connectivity issue.
After about 4 to 6 hours I lose the ability
to query spam databases. If I restart decludeproc
I can again connect to the databases. I also
have a slow memory creep. It will slowly climb
and I don't know if this is the cause of the loss
of
With this being said, no spam test is perfect. Therefore, I don't recomend
a single test, regardless how effective it is, being equal to your
hold/delete weight.
I love the spamcop test, however, it is set to 60% of my hold weight,
requiring another test or two to fail before the email is
This is what we have in our 'global.cfg' file:
SPFFAIL spffail x x 3 0
Is this old syntax? A remnant of version 1.86? We are currently running
JunkMail 3.0.5.20.
Also, why are the weights all zero? Shouldn't a fail add weight, and a pass
subtract weight? Or, am I misunderstanding the 'spf'
