On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Daniel Quinlan moaned:
> ClamAV is now marking phishing messages as virus-positive.
>
> I think it's a bit ludicrous to consider phishing messages as viruses
> rather than spam -- they share far more traits with spam than viruses, I
Agreed.
Anyone running the clamav-milter mi
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4070
Summary: Spam Reporting: Providing "spam category" via command
line
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4069
Summary: Spam Reporting: Getting tests results from removed
markup
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-08 06:36 ---
Hi,
two questions:
1. Each rule in SpamAssasin have 4 scores. How does SpamAssassin set the last 3
scores ?
2. If the last 3 scores are absent, will SpamAssass
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3998
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-08 03:46 ---
Actually, after looking a bit more, the current levels don't really seem to be
following any convention at all. Bonded Sender has a -4.3 which is a holdover
from
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3998
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-08 03:38 ---
-1 the negative bonuses are excessive and inconsistent with our current levels
As I understand it, our current levels are:
-16 for closed-loop opt-in
-8 for
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 21:58 ---
Subject: Re: [review] adopt Apache preforking algorithm
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:54:09PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> is anyone else running this without
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3983
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 21:54 ---
i have this running on many systems and its working great. however, i have one
that is a problem, and it really the only oddball out of the bunch. its a dual
hyp
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4048
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 19:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=2593)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2593&action=view)
checks to see if $ident_username is defined
---
>> oh good, so you've changed your mind since
>> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3781#c3 then ;)
>Somewhat. I still think it should be a plugin.
There's a problem with plugins I hadn't realized when they were originally
being advertized as the universal solution to oddball rul
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4064
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2591 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4064
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 19:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=2591)
--> (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2591&action=view)
implements config option
--- You are receiving t
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4068
Summary: SpamAssassin doesn't follow RFCs 822, 2045, and 2046
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 2.64
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
> oh good, so you've changed your mind since
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3781#c3 then ;)
Somewhat. I still think it should be a plugin.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4066
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 16:45 ---
NEEDSMC
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4066
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 16:45 ---
this one should fail:
header BORKED /foo/bar/baz/i
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching th
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3781
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 16:08 ---
Subject: Re: There should be a rule type for mime part headers
> this is now more important, as anti-spam rules are being found that *do* work
> based on the MIM
17 matches
Mail list logo