On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
...I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have to
click on each email in a thread to read its content.
This caught my eye, and I wonder if there may be a correlation to
user preference.
I avoid using the mouse wherever possible, p
Hi all,
I don't recall seeing discussion of this question before, but
apologize if I've missed it.
Occasionally I get unsolicited bulk e-mail on a topic that is of
borderline interest to me. My tendency is to deleted it from my
spam folder before training the Bayes functions on my spam. I
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, mouss wrote:
Roger Taranto a écrit :
If it didn't tie up sockets on our machines, it seems like instead of
rejecting the mail, we should just hold on to the mail connection for as
long as possible. It wouldn't take too long to tie up all of their
outbound connections an
On Sun, 15 May 2005, Craig McLean wrote:
> The scores on the doors (using set 4):
> NO_REAL_NAME 0.007
> INVALID_DATE 0.236
> HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL 0.146
> BAYES_99 3.5
> HTML_MESSAGE 0.001
> HTML_FONT_BIG 0.142
> MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 0.039
>
> The scores for each rule, when added together, are 4.
On Sun, 15 May 2005, Craig McLean wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Loren Wilton wrote:
> |>Now correct me if I'm wrong, but 3.5 + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.1 is not 4.1 ?
> |
> | Rounding. See the wiki.
>
> Can you be more specific? A search of wiki.apache.org/spamassassin shows
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Chris Santerre wrote:
> >
> >And various others. It appears to me a timely reminder, as if one
> >were needed, that some spammers know what measures are being used
> >against them and learn how to combat at least some of them.
> Oh this is most definetly a fact. And we have
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:13 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> > > The XBL however, has the "notfirsthop" restriction. It won't match
> > > any messages that have no trusted relays. Based on the debug
> > > output, there we
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 10:01 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> >When the spam in question arrived, several rules did not appear to
> >fire; specifically the two RBLs RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and
> >RCVD_IN_XBL, as well as URIBL_OB_SURBL.
>
>
Hi all,
I'm very puzzled by the attached spam that appeared in my inbox
last night. I'm running Slackware 9.1, with SpamAssassin-3.0.0,
sendmail-8.12.10, and procmail-3.15.2. I run spamassassin (not
spamd), and invoke it from procmail. I use pine4.58 as my client.
This all runs on a PIII box w
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> Oh its real! However my nachos are home made using Cool Ranch Doritos. ;)
Naw. They're not homemade until you fry the chips yourself. Might
even have to press out the tortillas to qualify...
--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bl
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 08:04 PM 12/3/2004 -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> >
> >The thing I've noticed on all of the ones which get through is that
> >ALL_TRUSTED is one of the tests listed.
>
> If your mailserver is NATed (or otherwise uses a reserved IP), you MUST
> define
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, ChupaCabra wrote:
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 16 11:26:35 2004
> Subject: [SPAM] Christmas gift idea - Rolex Watch
> Folder:
> /home/correspondance/Maildir/new/1100625995.28492_1.mail.cho 5228
> procmail: [28493] Tue Nov 16 11:26:37 2004
> procmail: No match on
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, "Tuc at Beach House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > The reason I joined was that I recently upgraded my FreeBSD box from 2.64
> > > to 3.0.1_1 (Not sure what about it makes it _1, but thats ok)
> > >
> > > As soon as I did, the amount of spam I started getting as
> > > goo
ri, 8 Oct 2004, Theodore Heise wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have SA 3.0 rc2 running on my Slackware 9.0 box, and want to
> upgrade to the official 3.0 release. I looked through the UPGRADE
> file and didn't see any information on whether I need to do anything
> with my Bay
Hi all,
I have SA 3.0 rc2 running on my Slackware 9.0 box, and want to
upgrade to the official 3.0 release. I looked through the UPGRADE
file and didn't see any information on whether I need to do anything
with my Bayes databases during the process.
Thanks for any guidance.
--
Theodore (Ted)
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Theodore Heise wrote:
> I've been pointing sa-learn at Pine mail folders now for over two
> years, and just ignoring the fact it's learning from the Pine folder
> header. I don't expect to actually get any e-mail resembling it.
> During this t
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Gregory Zornetzer wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, jdow wrote:
> > From: "Gregory Zornetzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Generally, I notice that sa-learn processes exactly one more message than
> > > I thought was in the folder. When I take a look in the folder with a text
>
Hi all,
This may have been addressed previously, but I couldn't find it in
the list archives.
I was looking over scores of my newly installed 3.0.0-rc2 and
noticed that for fourth column[1] the BAYES_95 score is higher than
BAYES_99.
score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.665 -2.599
score BAYES_
18 matches
Mail list logo
