On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/2014 11:37 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
>>> do stuff like this? It just makes it look
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
You are an administrator. YOU ARE PAID BY CLUELESS USERS TO PROTECT
THEM AND THEIR DATA, DAMMIT.
...unless it involves some actual, you know, effort on their part.
And in this instance, Large DP Company *is* doing something proactive to
protec
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:44:27 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> David DID NOT say that. He said that "he was shocked to discover"
> Why are you assuming he is under NDA or he is an employee of this
> company?
Let me clarify the situation:
1) I'm the owner of Roaring Penguin, so my boss is unlikel
Hi all,
first of all, big thanks for all the inputs.
I am seeing a nice quantity of blocked spammers it was really a high rate
of them and KAM you, as always, are right. It is taking some FP on the run,
but from 640 blocked emails less than a 1 percent were FP, that FPs are
being taking care on a
On 7/9/2014 11:37 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
do stuff like this? It just makes it look like your manufacturing
an event that doesn't exist, it destroys your credibili
I had similar issue, I am running FreeBSD, in my etc/group
vscan:*:110:clamav
also, cd /var
ls -la
drwxr-x 8 vscan vscan amavis
because inside /var/amavisd
db .spamassassin
Thanks,
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruce Sackett wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:42 AM,
On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:42 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, motty cruz wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruce,
>> I was having similar issues, can you do su - vscan and restart amavisd
>> service?
>
> user "vscan" != user "amavis".
>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Bruce Sackett wrote:
>>
>>> S
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
> do stuff like this? It just makes it look like your manufacturing
> an event that doesn't exist, it destroys your credibility.
>
You mean besides NDAs and polici
First of all why do people insist on hiding names of companies that
do stuff like this? It just makes it look like your manufacturing
an event that doesn't exist, it destroys your credibility.
Secondly, if you think that this is an example of "badness" on Windows
security best practices you sim
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 05:44:34 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> If you deliberately try to sneak past sensible security measures, you
> should not be surprised to be blocked. The attempt by an honest user
> to disguise any $file (he did it on purpose, so he knows there's
> issues with that) is in
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Asai wrote:
Greetings,
We've been running Spamassassin (3.3.1 currently, concurrently with Amavis)
using MySQL as a backend for many years now and we have 1 million + entries
in the Bayes table. At this time, there seems to be a lot of spam getting
through the filters an
Greetings,
We've been running Spamassassin (3.3.1 currently, concurrently with
Amavis) using MySQL as a backend for many years now and we have 1
million + entries in the Bayes table. At this time, there seems to be a
lot of spam getting through the filters and we currently have our spam
leve
On 7/9/2014 9:08 AM, RW wrote:
VERP and similar schemes work on the envelope, so checking the From
header should relatively safe.
Not debating that point because it's not really my point. I'm trying to
focus on the fact that the existence of the schema he is looking for
with the rule looks t
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:54:08 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/9/2014 1:00 AM, Sergio wrote:
> > It seems that my rule using "Received" instead of "From" did the
> > trick, the rule is working now.
> Sergio,
>
> The format of that email address is likely verp or some related
> format that enc
On 7/9/2014 1:00 AM, Sergio wrote:
It seems that my rule using "Received" instead of "From" did the
trick, the rule is working now.
Sergio,
The format of that email address is likely verp or some related format
that encodes the recipient in the From address so that bounces can be
processed (h
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:42:26 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 9. jul. 2014 07.00.44 CEST, Sergio wrote:
> >It seems that my rule using "Received" instead of "From" did the
> >trick, the rule is working now.
It should run only on the From header. Otherwise it may FP on VERP and
similar rewriting
On 9. jul. 2014 07.00.44 CEST, Sergio wrote:
>It seems that my rule using "Received" instead of "From" did the trick,
>the rule is working now.
It 2 diffrent spams :)
>> These are the headers from amazoncoupons-user=domain@lastawhdak.com:
> headerBLACKLIST_REGEXFrom:address =~ /\=.
On 07/09/2014 12:40 AM, RW wrote:
use_learner 0
use_learner ( 0 | 1 ) (default: 1)
Whether to use any machine-learning classifiers with
SpamAssassin, such as the default 'BAYES_*' rules. Setting this to
0 will disable use of any and all human-trained classifiers.
18 matches
Mail list logo
