On 03.08.09 23:17, MySQL Student wrote:
We have accumulated quite a large list of whitelisted users, primarily
because they were previously tagged incorrectly. I've extracted a copy
of all whitelisted mail into a separate mbox.
Certainly there is some spam in there as well, but assuming I
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 3-Aug-2009, at 18:36, Dennis G German wrote:
Is Backscatter.org http://www.backscatterer.org/index.php used by any
rules?
Pretty sure not. The way to use that RBL is as an RBL. Don't accept
the backscatter in the first place.
If you use the lists as
On 03.08.09 09:43, monolit wrote:
If you are so clever (because I am bad english speaker) you can explain me
this problematics in my mail(po slovensky). Its problem for you? I didnt
enough good materials about this theme in czech language.
Well,
- do not train on fake messages.
- do not modify
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:39:44 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 03.08.09 09:43, monolit wrote:
If you are so clever (because I am bad english speaker) you can explain
me
this problematics in my mail(po slovensky). Its problem for you? I
didnt
enough good materials about
Jason Haar wrote:
On 08/04/2009 02:03 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Here's an example: http://pastebin.com/m75f39d72
pretty cool. does a similar thing here on a 64bit amd core running
freebsd., perl 5.8.9,
(but it only took 52 seconds)
but thats about 45 seconds more then it should. we are
Mark Martinec wrote:
trouble spot. If it hapens very rarely, you can ignore it, it can be
treated
as as warning only.
This error message is present everyday and in each day is present six/seven
many times in my log file.
Now in this situation with this frequency I can ignore this error or
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit?
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:09 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never
I'm glad to see this SPAM traffic has come to a halt. At least on my
mail server...
--
Dan Schaefer
Web Developer/Systems Analyst
Performance Administration Corp.
--On Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:17 PM +1200 Jason Haar
jason.h...@trimble.co.nz wrote:
strace shows spamd running around looking for unicore/lib/gc_sc files -
which is related to unicode stuff. I don't know if that's the problem -
but that's all I could find.
This looks like a good candidate
(missing in your paste)
the received header was not missing. just stripped.
Received: from host231.dhms-domainmanagement.net ([91.199.51.231])
This assumption is wrong. You did receive a message from the From:
header address and the same originating
net-block in the past.
True I
Hi Dan and *,
Am 2009-08-04 14:37:46, schrieb Dan Schaefer:
I'm glad to see this SPAM traffic has come to a halt. At least on my
mail server...
They have seen, the out spamassassin is working verry efficient. I get
only one or two spams per day... which are catched by SA of course.
On 08/05/2009 06:46 AM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
This looks like a good candidate to open a Bugzilla for.
Done. Anyone else with any new details should add to the ticket
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6170
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:18 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
This assumption is wrong. You did receive a message from the From:
header address and the same originating
net-block in the past.
Should I disable AWL, or can i
unlearn it?
Apparently you previously (maybe not this week)
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:18 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
(missing in your paste)
the received header was not missing. just stripped.
Please do not quote me out of context. I said From: header address
(missing in your paste). Inserted in the quote below where you ripped
it out.
This
Please do not quote me out of context.
Sorry. didnt find an apropriate way to respond to two statements in one
sentence.
Again, the greylisting prior to receiving this spam is not the reason.
SA, or more specifically AWL, does not know about that.
It is. I forgot to mention i run SA
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never received any
I decided last week to finally give the short circuit plug-in a try to
see how much it sped up detection. Its working great on spam:
Aug 4 14:43:08 localhost spamd[1023]: spamd: result: Y 39 -
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:37 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit?
in later mail you mention that you run SA before greylisting.
If, for
Chris wrote:
I decided last week to finally give the short circuit plug-in a try to
see how much it sped up detection. Its working great on spam:
but not so well with ham:
Aug 4 14:22:48 localhost spamd[1023]: spamd: result: . -10 -
AWL. Obviously, it counters the custom scores, based on the sender's
history. And it seems, the sores have been really low in the past.
spamassassin -t sample
What does that say at the bottom of the output, for this sample?
Inhaltsanalyse im Detail: (8.3 Punkte, 5.0 benötigt)
Pkte
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:34 +0100, Cedric Knight wrote:
Chris wrote:
I decided last week to finally give the short circuit plug-in a try to
see how much it sped up detection. Its working great on spam:
but not so well with ham:
Aug 4 14:22:48 localhost spamd[1023]: spamd: result: .
Hi,
I'm still working on my bayes training project, but also trying to
upgrade the bayes DB due to upgrading perl and all the associated
modules. I started with this output from sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0
24 matches
Mail list logo
