cial what was not. This is wrong
because the connotations you giving the words are factually and
historically incorrect. This is wrong, and that should be self evident
to every single one of you.
Kurt Fitzner
On 2020-07-10 01:00, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> IMPORTANT NOTICE
>
On 2019-05-11 23:25, David Jones wrote:
Is this for a single mailbox? If that is the case, then it's fine to
make a decision like that for a single mailbox. For those of us
running
mail filtering plaforms for customers, this would be a very bad rule.
Not a single mailbox, no. Not nearly t
On 2019-05-10 12:42, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I wanted to comment OP's mail, but since I don't have DKIM set up, I
wasn't
sure it would pass :-)
I actually didn't have DKIM signing set up myself until a couple weeks
ago. I had been lazy in setting it for a while, but I had to because
I've noticed on my mail server that DKIM signing is almost diagnostic of
spam. Almost no legitimate sender is without DKIM, and about 90% of my
spam is unsigned, so I want to bias non-DKIM-signed heavily towards
spam. To that end I was wondering if there are any built-in rules I can
activate
I just received some email from Spamcop, and thought to check the
spamassassin scores on it:
No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599,
DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME=0.001,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2,
FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=1.593,SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no version=3.1.7
I was quite amused t
Justin Mason wrote:
> OTOH, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, and DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS will
> likely not make it into the next release going by those rates.
Thank-you very kindly for your work.
I apologize (to all) for any overzealousness on my part. I realize I
addressed the issue on a vari
John D. Hardin wrote:
> That said, many times I have been annoyed by a filter on somebody's
> abuse@ address bouncing an abuse notice that I sent *with evidence*. I
> do not recommend a rejecting spam filter on the abuse@ address, it
> will keep people from reporting abuse of your systems to you.
John D. Hardin wrote:
> But if the stated purpose of the BL is "this domain does not have a
> working postmaster address" then it's unreasonable to ask them to
> exclude a domain that does not have a working postmaster address, no
> matter how large or popular that domain is.
My concern is the sc
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> why do you care about it ?
>
> after all its not your domain :-)
I care because:
A) All mail into my domain is filtered through SpamAssassin with a
milter - including mail that goes to postmaster and abuse. Not that my
little domain gets much on either address, but from w
I just upgraded from 3.0.2 to 3.1.7 today, as I noticed the amount of
spam getting through was increasing lately. Very soon after my upgrade,
I received email from someone on yahoo and checked the spam score to see
what the new version was doing. Here it is:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=
10 matches
Mail list logo
