On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
>
> God dag,
>
> ***
> Warning!
> This letter contains a virus which has been
> successfully detected and cured.
> ***
>
> The part that's noteworthy is this:
>
>
> ***
> Warning!
> This letter contains a virus which has been
> successfully detected
> 1. How many Spam detection rate if I am using default 3.2
> configuration you would expect?
>
I run the default configuration with language filtering (DE FR GB are
OK_Languages) plus some personally developed rules. Bayes is purely
auto-learn.
%non-spam varies from day to day, within the rang
Please teach your mailer to wrap lines in a sane way...
On 01.07.08 11:46, NGSS wrote:
> Many of our clients started to have problem sending emails to us after I
> inserted more strict
> SA rules . Previously our system was flooded with spams. So I decided to
> inserted them to the
> Existing em
On 01.07.08 12:51, howard chen wrote:
> I am new to SA, I have read through some of the faq and wiki, so far
> can't find the average spam rate % detected by SA. I know it is not
> the same for everyone, but I want to get the feel of general
> statistics (If you don't mind to share)
>
> 1. How man
On 01.07.08 08:48, Philippe Couas wrote:
> I have add procmail to my config to avoid most spam, but il delete others
> mails too.
Do not drop spam below some sane score (8 or 10).
Configure spamassassin and teach bayes filter properly.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fan
Hi
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean "spam rate"? the amount of spam your mailservers will
> receive is quite independent on version of spamassassin.
>
Yes, I would like to know if somewhere can find these info or anyone can shar
howard chen wrote:
Hello,
I am new to SA, I have read through some of the faq and wiki, so far
can't find the average spam rate % detected by SA. I know it is not
the same for everyone, but I want to get the feel of general
statistics (If you don't mind to share)
1. How many Spam detection rate
Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
> On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> >
> > God dag,
> >
> > ***
> > Warning!
> > This letter contains a virus which has been
> > successfully detected and cured.
> > ***
> >
> > The part that's noteworthy is this:
> >
> >
> > ***
> > Warning!
> > This
Hi,
How could i avoid theses spam ?
i have replace my company name by 'societe'
Regards
Philippe
De : David Lxxx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mardi 1 juillet 2008 13:36
À : 'Philippe Cxxx'
Objet : TR: Maintenant, je Suis Encore en Bonne Sante.
Un exemple de spam reçu en début d'après-
> > On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> > > God dag,
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Warning!
> > > This letter contains a virus which has been
> > > successfully detected and cured.
> > > ***
> > >
> > > The part that's noteworthy is this:
> > >
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Warning!
> > > This letter
the same for everyone, but I want to get the feel of general
statistics (If you don't mind to share)
1. How many Spam detection rate if I am using default 3.2
configuration you would expect?
> 2. If fine tuned according to the wiki, e.g. running sa-update, more
> rules set, how many % you would
Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
> > > On 30.06.08 19:04, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> > > > God dag,
> > > >
> > > > ***
> > > > Warning!
> > > > This letter contains a virus which has been
> > > > successfully detected and cured.
> > > > ***
> > > >
> > > > The part that's noteworthy is this:
> >
mouss-2 wrote:
>
> then maybe you are using the wrong expression. show the rule and a
> sample message that slips...
>
The following message has been delivered to my inbox:
Subject: Royal luxury of high-rank watches
Body: Rep1!c@ watches presented at our store are available at the most
comp
Hi,
Simone Morandini wrote:
mouss-2 wrote:
then maybe you are using the wrong expression. show the rule and a
sample message that slips...
The following message has been delivered to my inbox:
Subject: Royal luxury of high-rank watches
Body: Rep1!c@ watches presented at our store are ava
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 17:17 -0500, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 22:04 +0200, mouss wrote:
> > McDonald, Dan wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 01:40 +0200, mouss wrote:
> > >
> > >> mouss wrote:
> > >>
> > Is there some way to grab the metadata from IPCountry to count t
Am 2008-06-27 08:17:11, schrieb Richard Frovarp:
> The list is setup without a reply to field. Look at the headers. Anyone
> hitting reply will get the individual who sent who sent the message, not
> the list. I'm guessing people are taking the shortcut of hitting reply
> all (so that they get t
Philippe Couas wrote:
Hi,
How could i avoid theses spam ?
i have replace my company name by 'societe'
Block it in your postfix. here are some hints (that you may or may not
be able to use):
- its helo is not fqdn. so it can be blocked by
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
- the PTR for the
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 17:17 -0500, McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 22:04 +0200, mouss wrote:
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 01:40 +0200, mouss wrote:
mouss wrote:
Is there some way to grab the metadata fro
Hi Philippe,
At 04:44 01-07-2008, Philippe Couas wrote:
How could i avoid theses spam ?
i have replace my company name by 'societe'
[snip]
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.7 required=6.2 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
MR_NOT_ATTRIBUTED_IP,NO_RDNS,RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK,RCVD_IN_SORBS,
R
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 18:18 +0200, mouss wrote:
> McDonald, Dan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 17:17 -0500, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 22:04 +0200, mouss wrote:
> >>
> >>> McDonald, Dan wrote:
> >>>
> On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 01:40 +0200, mouss wrote:
> >
Justin Mason wrote:
[snip]
On 01.07.08 10:50, Justin Mason wrote:
no -- this is real spam, not a bounce in any way.
same here. not a bounce in any way.
Are you sure it's not just virus message sent by someone and cured by
intermediate relay?
Yes, seeing lots of this exact
I'm getting dozens of emails daily from a few different spammers. The emails
consistently are graphic based, but the graphics are html img refs and not
consistent
names - the last image in each one is their send mail to this address to be
removed (or
actually to guarantee even MORE spam).
O
Could you give an example? Are these newly registered top level domains
spotted in the body of the spams?
Rob McEwen
Mailing Lists wrote:
I'm getting dozens of emails daily from a few different spammers. The emails
consistently are graphic based, but the graphics are html img refs and not co
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 2008, July 01 01:55
Certainly. Using an older release of SA against recent spam will result
in significantly lower detection rates. The code really does matter
quite a lot to detection rate. Things like tweaks to the HTML parser
that dea
Thanks for the response.
Yah I think it is just too aggressive, I included a handful of rules
Is there any forum or website that discuss about (lists of ) rules that is
likely to result in more false positives ?
-Original Message-
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Se
Something is wrong with the configuration. Does anyone know which sa rule is
responsible for this ?
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=gmail.com
On 02.07.08 13:55, NGSS wrote:
> To: 'Matus UHLAR - fantomas' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> users@spamassassin.apache.org
Please, don't send private replies, I did not ask for them.
> Yah I think it is just too aggressive, I included a handful of rules
> Is there any forum or website that discuss
I did a spamassasin -D --lint , but cannot find where this rule came from.
Anyone knows this?
28 matches
Mail list logo
