Just a quick note that, as promised and at long last, I've published
the first version of SARE's new Whitelist config file.
Documentation available at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#whitelist
Unlike most SARE files, which contains SpamAssassin rules and
therefore usually cannot be used by
Gary W. Smith wrote:
Since 3.0.1 we have had great success with SA and MySQL. In production
we have a decent MySQL server serving two separate Servers running SA
which in turn are used by 4 frond end relays.
All in all I think it's a good solution if you need a central database
shared between mul
Since 3.0.1 we have had great success with SA and MySQL. In production
we have a decent MySQL server serving two separate Servers running SA
which in turn are used by 4 frond end relays.
All in all I think it's a good solution if you need a central database
shared between multiple instances. It
Suppose the SARE rule is FU_BAR. You define a private rule "MW_BAR"
and as part of its definition block you set the score for "FU_BAR"
to zero.
That is the theory anyway. It won't work with 3.02 even with user
rules enabled. Or rather it will work deceptively. Suppose you have
N instances of spamd
I would like to have a block of SARE rules only be used if one of my self
defined rules does not match. Is there a way to do that in SA 3.0.2?
regards,
wolfgang
I just found out that because I use spamassassin/sendmail and
spamass-milter, I have to use a sitewide bayes database. I also found out
that as an alternative I can use MySQL to be the Bayes DB. I'm a little
leery of tying my sendmail functionality to MySQL. Can people tell me what
they think o
On Friday, April 22, 2005, 7:27:17 AM, John Delisle wrote:
> Even if data re average age of the domains, wouldn't they just start
> registering them earlier so as to not match that pattern?
Yeah that's always a possibility. But there seems to be some
evidence that a lot of spam domains don't get
On Friday, April 22, 2005, 9:27:56 AM, Steven Champeon wrote:
> See:
> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2005-01/msg00225.html
> for one particular spamgang (dunno who); seems to be entirely dedicated
> to sending out spam in multipart with one redirector link (ends in .html,
> with embedd
Hello Matthew,
Friday, April 22, 2005, 2:49:38 AM, you wrote:
MN> Hi,
MN> Have had several spams over the last few days with the exact
MN> paragraph below. Anyone else seen similar messages? Any rules
MN> available?
As suggested, if that paragraph is being repeated, Bayes is your
friend. Agreed
On Friday 22 April 2005 04:49 am, Matthew Newton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Have had several spams over the last few days with the exact paragraph
> below. Anyone else seen similar messages? Any rules available?
>
It's tagged quite easily here. Didn't include the entire paragraph, but its
the same.
Subje
10 matches
Mail list logo