From: hospice...@outlook.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Detecting very recently registered domain names
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:45:07 +
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:26:08 +
From:
Hello Martin:
THANKS SO MUCH!!!
I have had modified your code, so being useful at my platform with
MySQL... also adding some code for wildcards, as *@domain.tld.
. needed to cpan install and use Email::Address
.
my ($mailaddr) = Email::Address-parse($aa);
my $dominio =
On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:45 AM, hospice admin hospice...@outlook.com wrote:
... its not like NOMINET give a darn about spam, is it??
Nominet are arguably one of the few registrars that very much do care about
spam, AFAIK. I know several staffers and former staffers who job it was to deal
with
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 07:29 -0600, Mark Chaney wrote:
I am using spamassassin standalone and I am trying to figure out how to
duplicate this format that I would normally get from my servers that
user amavis or mailscanner. How can I get a format like so? Ive read the
manual, but havent
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 01:56 +, Mark Tully wrote:
One pattern of messages which I’ve noticed slip through are those which
have a multipart and have a block of bayes poisoning text in the
text/plain part, with the real spam payload in the text/html part.
What I’m seeing is that the
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:20:33 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
Even the most effective results I have ever seen on a non-personal
attack is merely getting the Bayes classification to a neutral. And
that was not a regular text token, but includes mail headers. And a
On Thu, January 9, 2014 6:20 pm, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Even the most effective results I have ever seen on a non-personal
attack is merely getting the Bayes classification to a neutral. And that
was not a regular text token, but includes mail headers. And a biased
Bayes database towards
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 20:14 -0700, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
On Thu, January 9, 2014 6:20 pm, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Even the most effective results I have ever seen on a non-personal
attack is merely getting the Bayes classification to a neutral. And that
was not a regular text token, but
On Thu, January 9, 2014 9:46 pm, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Unfortunately, well, for the scumbags, the shorter it gets, the less
likely it is to be understood. Fallen for. Or even understood to be
actual language.
Well, not really true, because of the rising resurgence of spammers using
Thanks, that helps a bit:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.6 required=5.0 tests=[AWL=-0.040,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SO_FROM_HJPC=0.65, SO_HELO_LDOM=0.65,
SO_LOCAL_FROM=-0.1, SO_NOT_FROM_RP=2.5, SPF_FAIL=0.919] autolearn=no
X-Spam-Level:
But I am still missing these two lines:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:14:20PM -0700, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
What's the way that I can inject the bayes-identified tokens (hammy or
spammy) into my SA headers, so that I can try to debug what's causing this
problem?
Manual debug:
spamassassin -t -D bayes message | grep bayes:
(of course
11 matches
Mail list logo
