On 8/9/2011 3:39 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
does anyone know about this rbl?
http://www.lashback.com/blacklist/
We have a persistent sender who is sending phishing emails through a
large corporate server (not ours .. ;-)
the only two reputation filters that list them are the commercial DCC,
On 7/16/2011 4:54 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 07/15, ssapp80 wrote:
Running spamassassin-3.3.2 on CentOS 5.5
perl-Net-DNS ver 0.59 installed
When I run sa-update i receive the following failures on the Net::DNS module
name2labels is not exported by the Net::DNS module
My guess is
On 7/17/2011 7:55 AM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-17 18:32, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 7/16/2011 4:54 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 07/15, ssapp80 wrote:
Running spamassassin-3.3.2 on CentOS 5.5
perl-Net-DNS ver 0.59 installed
When I run sa-update i receive the following failures
On 7/15/2011 10:35 AM, ssapp80 wrote:
Running spamassassin-3.3.2 on CentOS 5.5
perl-Net-DNS ver 0.59 installed
When I run sa-update i receive the following failures on the Net::DNS module
name2labels is not exported by the Net::DNS module
Can't continue after import errors at
On 7/11/2011 7:53 PM, R - elists wrote:
It's removal was based at least in part on a belief that it
was not actually usable for anybody. You could take it up
with the dev list, particularly if you're up for maintaining
it in a way that's useful for the major rpm platforms.
Either way you
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
configuration options to
On 7/4/2011 12:58 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi Warren,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 00:46:15 -1000, Warren Togami Jr.wtog...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
configuration options to
On 7/4/2011 1:52 AM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-04 12:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have
On 7/4/2011 1:52 AM, Axb wrote:
A small site will never use 400MB of DNS cacheing... don't scare ppl
unnecessarily :)
Larger sites already do local recursion and have the iron to to it.
(other recursors will also use a lot of memory under high-ish load)
It is also possible that pdns-recursor
On 6/27/2011 7:03 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 06/27, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
I noticed the rules for 3.3.1 were updated during the weekend (don't worry
about my workaholism, I noticed this monday morning ^-^). I was preparing
to upgrade to 3.3.2, but seeing the updated rules
Release Notes -- Apache SpamAssassin -- Version 3.3.2
Introduction
This is a minor release, primarily to support perl-5.12 and later.
Additionally several other minor bugs are fixed.
Downloading and availability
Downloads are available from:
http://www.spamtips.org/p/rpm-packages.html
These packages for EL5 and EL6 are identical to the Fedora versions, and
I personally use them in production.
Warren Togami
war...@togami.com
On 6/11/2011 10:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
-- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were being checked in there
was to make their accuracy visible in ruleqa. It's been months since
I've looked at that, so it's needless.
On 6/12/2011 12:32 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/11/2011 10:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
guys -- I'm going to make the whole question moot (in trunk at least)
-- the only reason SOUGHT and SOUGHT_FRAUD were being checked in there
was to make their accuracy visible in ruleqa. It's been months
Wait a sec, I'm confused about this. JM_SOUGHT_2 hitting on every
legit Facebook message on dev@ list February 17th 2011. If the SOUGHT
channel was being overridden by the sa-update rules, how would this
problem appear from the SOUGHT channel? Doesn't this suggest that
spamassassin was
On 6/10/2011 11:13 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Wait a sec, I'm confused about this. JM_SOUGHT_2 hitting on every legit
Facebook message on dev@ list February 17th 2011. If the SOUGHT channel
was being overridden by the sa-update rules, how would this problem
appear from the SOUGHT channel
On 6/10/2011 7:14 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
You are generally correct about the numerical (actually lexical) order,
though it doesn't apply to the files you are talking about. The
mentioned 72_active and 20_sought are in different sa-update channels.
Now, the bad thing about this is that
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the reorder
hack to bend the alphabet.
It is not entirely clear to me, what exactly are you supposed to rename
for the reorder hack? You have to do it every time you sa-update?
On 6/10/2011 3:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
IFF you use the sought channel with SA 3.3.x, you will need the
reorder
hack to bend the alphabet
We need +3 votes from PMC (or the release manager) to declare 3.3.2 an
official ASF release. This 3.3.2 release has no changes since
3.3.2-rc2. Please do some testing before voting.
If you are not a PMC member, please let us know if you see any
regressions since 3.3.1 along with details of
3.3.2-rc2 is meant to be the true release candidate for 3.3.2. If we
find no problems with rc2, then I will recut it as 3.3.2 final with no
code changes.
http://people.apache.org/~wtogami/devel/3.3.2-rc2/
3.3.2-rc2 tarballs plus rules from sa-update channel
sha1sum of archive files:
On 5/18/2011 1:20 AM, john ffitch wrote:
Thank you. Removing the defined clear one error but I still get
May 18 12:17:36.306 [5489] warn: Use of uninitialized value
$opt{syslog-socket} in lc at /usr/bin/spamd line 444.
child process [5491] exited or timed out without signaling production of a
http://people.apache.org/~wtogami/rpm/3.3.2-rc1/
I made test packages for EL5 and EL6. I began using both in production
just now with no apparent ill effects. We need more people to test this
and provide feedback.
Warren
On 05/14/2011 10:34 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Hey folks
Hey folks,
This is an UNRELEASED CANDIDATE of spamassassin-3.3.2-rc1. It would be
helpful for folks to test it and provide feedback. Don't worry about
the rules tarball, because the real rules you get from running sa-update
the first time.
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/05/dnsbl-safety-report-5142011.html
Several of the well known add-on DNSBL's have changed in safety or
overlap since the previous January 2011 report, so sysadmins of
Spamassassin servers may want to look carefully at this new report.
Please file bugs. Nothing can be committed to spamassassin-3.3.x
without bugs and votes.
Warren
On 5/6/2011 9:19 AM, Greg Lentz wrote:
Well, since it looks like SA 3.2 hasn't been getting rules for a
couple of years, that probably isn't as critical at the moment. --
Greg Lentz
Of course it is critical. How effective would your virus scanner be
after several years without updates?
On 4/22/2011 6:32 AM, Morten wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm looking at upgrading a SA 3.2.5 installation. I see that there's a 3.3.1
release, but that's more than a year old. Is there some shared rules repository
out there that's more recent?
Thanks,
Morten
We haven't had working statistics viewing for a few weeks, but now it is
fixed and I'm amazed by the performance of RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110409-r1090548-n/T_RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL/detail
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL has nearly the highest spam detection ratio of all the
On 3/29/2011 8:30 AM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:55:51 -0500
Maxmdun...@breakawaysystems.com wrote:
Heres the output of spamassassin -D --lint:
[29434] dbg: logger: adding facilities: all
[29434] dbg: logger: logging level is DBG
[29434] dbg: generic: SpamAssassin version
Update to
On 3/23/2011 7:38 AM, Blaine Fleming wrote:
On 3/23/2011 9:56 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
In the recent sa-updates, the Spam Eating Monkey rules were
inappropriately enabled. If you hit them too much, they start returning
100% false positives. Their listed limits are more than 100,000
On 3/23/2011 10:58 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 10:18 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 3/23/2011 7:38 AM, Blaine Fleming wrote:
In the recent sa-updates, the Spam Eating Monkey rules were
inappropriately enabled. [...]
As soon as the bug was reported on the dev
On 3/16/2011 4:08 PM, Hamad Ali wrote:
Hi folks -- wondering if anyone has monitored SA's performance against
phishing mails. SA is able to detect 86% of phishing emails my clients
get, with 0.5% false positives on all the ham. It seems non-phish-SPAM
is easier to be detected than phish (~99%
On 3/16/2011 5:45 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 20:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote:
Probably I need to participate on nightly checks to improve phish and
lower false positives.
More masscheck participants are always welcome!
No.
On 3/11/2011 10:05 AM, Hamad Ali wrote:
hi folks --- everything seems working like chicken. I'm loving SA so far.
However, I would like to disable all network tests (each mail takes ~10
seconds!). Except that I dunno how to do it the neat way.
Will the tests be disabled if their score is 0? I
On 3/10/2011 1:41 AM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
Apologies if this has been covered, an admittedly fairly cursory
Google showed nothing new. My local sa-update hasn't updated in the
better part of a month. Is it that there have been no updates or do I
need to dig into my systems to see what
On 3/8/2011 9:58 AM, Bill Landry wrote:
FYI: Spamhaus created a new URL shortener/redirector zone in the
DBL. See:
http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=667
Will Spamassassin be adding support for this new DBL
shortener/redirector response code?:
127.0.1.3 spammed redirector domain
For
On 3/6/2011 3:15 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 06/03/11 11:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I have no comment on your proposed solution. I can however point out the
statistics that I see on my own spam traps.
It seems that 90%+ of the spam coming from DNSWL listed hosts is Yahoo
and Hotmail which
On 3/7/2011 2:10 AM, Mynabbler wrote:
Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I'd agree, but users wont rebel against Yahoo unless they begin to see
actual bounces to their sent mail.
I don't know about your end users, but ours typically get flummoxed if mail
from this well known and trusted free mail
I have no comment on your proposed solution. I can however point out
the statistics that I see on my own spam traps.
It seems that 90%+ of the spam coming from DNSWL listed hosts is Yahoo
and Hotmail which are listed as DNSWL_NONE. Meanwhile very few spam
comes from gmail.com. Apparently
On 3/3/2011 3:06 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 01:53 +0100, Mikael Syska wrote:
I get the following hits:
Content analysis details: (19.1 points, 5.0 required)
Note though, that your score is on SA 3.3.x, while the OP uses SA 3.2.x.
Yes, I can tell this from the
On 2/20/2011 6:21 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Pasi Hirvonenp...@iki.fi wrote:
Hello,
I just recently moved our mail setup to new hardware and I've been
paying close attention to what gets marked as spam and what
doesn't.
Looking at my spam folder, I have
On 2/20/2011 6:31 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I know of no reason it would be a temporary hiccup, but it is certainly
unusual. According to spamassassin's mass checks, 0.89% of spam hits
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED: http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/
The masscheck results are a bit misleading,
On 2/20/2011 9:11 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Pasi Hirvonen,
Am 2011-02-20 17:22:23, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Hello,
I just recently moved our mail setup to new hardware and I've been
paying close attention to what gets marked as spam and what
doesn't.
Looking at my spam folder,
On 2/17/2011 11:44 PM, Daniel Lemke wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
[...]
I now need to set a proxy server to do sa-updates through, but could not
find any information on settings for a proxy server.
[...]
Added cmd options:
-x --proxy
-U --proxy-user
-P --proxy-password
-t
On 2/17/2011 5:40 AM, RW wrote:
The suggestion is that it be scored higher for that reason.
Or just outright block all MTA connections from anything listed in
zen.spamhaus.org, which seems to be safe. Large sites I know have been
doing that for years without any complaints.
Warren
On 2/10/2011 1:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Jason Haar wrote:
On 02/11/2011 09:37 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Yes, the security hole is entirely within the milter,
independent of the MTA.
That exploit is dated Mar 2010? Has this
On 2/10/2011 2:30 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
host mx1.res.cisco.com
mx1.res.cisco.com has address 208.90.57.13
$ host 208.90.57.13
13.57.90.208.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer mx1.res.cisco.com.
looks fine to me, why does this look to SA like a dynamic ip?
(TRIGGERED RDNS_DYNAMIC.)
what,
On 02/07/2011 05:37 PM, Mahmoud Khonji wrote:
On 01/21/2011 01:06 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 1/20/2011 7:23 AM, R - elists wrote:
initially this came across as a really suspect idea...
i.e., one man's junk is another man's treasure
Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham
On 2/2/2011 7:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
RFC Ignorant is deep into kook territory, as should be apparent if you
look at which RFCs they expect people to follow, and what their
definition of follow is.
abuse.net has been listed for years, since there is an autoresponder
on ab...@abuse.net, and
Hey folks,
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spamassassin-news/2011-January/01.html
Here is Issue #2 of my Spamassassin for Sysadmins Newsletter.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/spamassassin-news
Subscribe here.
It is intended to be like a Foo Weekly News
On 1/20/2011 12:49 AM, J4 wrote:
Good morning to all of you,
This popped up in the spamd.log after a reboot (done to test everything
worked after a reboot).
warn: dcc: dccifd - check skipped: dcc: failed to connect to a socket
/var/dcc/dccifd: Connection refused
The socket is there:
On 1/20/2011 1:06 AM, J4 wrote:
I had not realised it was in the repos - I just checked and it is. Damn.
I'm surprised it would be in the repos. DCC is not Free Software.
Warren
On 1/20/2011 7:23 AM, R - elists wrote:
initially this came across as a really suspect idea...
i.e., one man's junk is another man's treasure
Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
you subscribed for.
for a moment, it appeared we were gonna need to review
On 01/20/2011 11:31 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Public discussion lists are bit different. In that case, it is the
individual post that is being considered spam rather than considering
the list spammy. Since there is no overall control over the content of
the posts, public lists are vulnerable to
On 01/18/2011 11:49 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 4:59:05 AM, Warren Jr. wrote:
* Yes, we cannot be 100% sure our opt-in was only for that particular
site and not their partners. But in any case automatic ham trapped
mail will be only the mail branded by the subscribed
On 1/17/2011 11:46 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
So a couple points:
1. Subscribing to lists opens up lots of grey areas including
the above.
2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
ham. Some more aggressive anti-spammers may say all of the above
is spam, but others may
On 1/18/2011 1:15 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 01:46 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
While I certainly would encourage improving ham and spam corpora,
this proposal may open up a lot of grey areas that may be
non-trivial to resolve.
Agreed, and some companies will get to you sign
On 01/18/2011 12:31 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:20 +
Gary Forrestga...@netnorth.co.uk wrote:
Interesting 2 of our 3 scanning heads use a grey list system that
uses /32 addresses as part of the process, these two servers have
100's of emails delayed for well over a
On 01/18/2011 03:25 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 1/18/11 12:52 AM, Warren Togami Jr.wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
I am seeking volunteers to help me build and administrate a ham trap.
The idea is to subscribe a list of unique e-mail addresses to various
retailers, airlines, government and other
On 01/15/2011 01:36 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
In a year of running them locally I've never seen them hit on a ham
message. They appear to hit quite well for me because I pre-filter 95%+
of my spam at the smtp level (greylisting, HELO checks, spamhaus etc) so
SA only gets to see the difficult to
On 1/14/2011 2:28 AM, James Lay wrote:
Hey All!
Been a while since I did a full blown install of SpamAssassin, and as
I'm looking at my old setup, I see a fair amount of changes. I have the
SARE rules as well as RulesDuJour running, but noticed that on a fresh
install of SA, after doing an
On 01/14/2011 01:09 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 14/01/11 21:04, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Anyone else have effective local rules? Please let me know and I'll put
them into the nightly masscheck for testing.
Warren
header NSL_RCVD_HELO_USER Received =~ /helo[= ]user\)/i
describe
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110107-r1056221-n/DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL/detail
I just noticed this network rule with very poor performance. 0.02% spam
detected in recent masschecks.
My local logs show 16 hits out of 300K mail scanned in the last several
months, 2 of which were false positives.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
The only trouble here is HTTP's TCP handshake and teardown is significantly
slower than DNSBL and URIBL lookups already used in spamassassin. My
average scan time is less than one second. A plugin that catches the 1
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
There are lots of plugins out there that aren't part of the core for one
reason or another. If you ask me, this is one of them. It just asks trouble
widely used. It's not the only way to solve the problem anyway. And the
problem
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Steve Freegard st...@stevefreegard.comwrote:
On 01/01/11 11:51, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I'll help you start the process with a Bugzilla ticket. I also hope you
could get it into some sort of public source control mechanism soon so we
can see the changes
Can anyone think of custom rules or old sites that continue to be online,
misleading people into believing that they should be using some custom rule
or plugin that is no longer effective or safe? The former SARE repo was
the only one that I know about, but there are apparently others.
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Jason Haar jason.h...@trimble.co.nz wrote:
On 01/04/2011 04:50 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
Frankly, I'd think that besides costing the spammers money (a good thing
in
and of itself)
...spammers steal other people's resources - so they'll pay nothing...
The best
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/01/dnsbl-safety-report-122011.html
Further on the topic of RBL's, I wrote this article yesterday for add-on
DNSBL's for spamassassin.
(BTW, I do agree that zen.spamhaus.org is an excellent choice for outright
blocking of spam.)
Warren
I've been thinking, perhaps we should consider making a Freemail Realtime
BL that lists not IP addresses, but rather ID's at the Freemail provider.
1) I am assuming that ID's you see in headers of mail from Yahoo is always
from an authenticated user?
2) Traps and user reports can quickly list a
If I understand that thread correctly, that is for e-mail addresses in body
text?
I'm suggesting looking only at authenticated UID's in headers from specific
providers like Yahoo who are notorious for spam, but their MTA's also send a
significant amount of ham so we cannot DNSBL block them.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110102-r1054364-n/T_URL_SHORTENER/detail
I inserted a giant uri regex into the nightly masscheck in order to get a
rough measure the true extent of the URL shortener problem.
It appears that under 1% of spam is abusing shortening redirectors. ~40% of
the
What is the status of this plugin?
I notice that there is no Bugzilla ticket for this plugin. Do you intend on
submitting it for inclusion in future spamassassin upstream?
Would a DoS happen if the scanned e-mail contains 10,000 short URL's, and
your mail server is hit by many such mail?
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Steve Freegard st...@stevefreegard.comwrote:
I notice that there is no Bugzilla ticket for this plugin. Do you intend
on submitting it for inclusion in future spamassassin upstream?
I hadn't really thought about it TBH and wasn't sure what the procedure
http://www.surbl.org/faqs#redirect
BTW, this page mentions SpamCopURI and urirhdbl as existing tools that
handle redirection to some degree. Have you confirmed that you are not
needlessly reinventing the wheel? It is entirely possible that your design
with suggestions here could be better than
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Steve Freegard st...@stevefreegard.comwrote:
7) How fast are typical URL shortening responses? What is the timeout? We
want to avoid degrading the scan time and delivery performance of
spamassassin, but in a way that cannot be abused by the spammer to evade
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
On 12/30/2010 5:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
Ah, I see the problem. You're assuming that spammers will follow the
rules. That's a poor assumption.
No, I am assuming the spammers will do as they have always done in the
Folks here are missing the point, that NJABL is catching not much of
anything, like less than 1% of spam, and with a relatively high FP ratio. I
don't understand this desire to keep such a poor performing rule, especially
when it costs a network query.
Warren
Whoa. Ted please calm down. I think you read too much into this and are
seriously overreacting. I didn't propose immediately replacing NJABL with
something else like mailspike. I was only pointing out that NJABL was
performing very poorly, to such an extent that you're better off removing it
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
All very good points. I guess I'm a bit frustrated because njabl is
clearly not performing anymore, I noticed that a few years back, and
yet it's still in SA but better BL's are not. As you (and I) both
illustrated,
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6525
Discussion about disabling NJABL.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6526
Discussion about disabling rfc-ignorant.org.
score __RCVD_IN_NJABL 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_CGI 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_MULTI
I found that if I don't set the non-scoring subrule to zero, it does the DNS
lookup anyway. I will try that meta. Thx.
Warren
I thought a bit more about the --reuse problem. While there are pros and
cons to reuse, I guess there is more benefit to --reuse than without. So I
now recommend it in all cases of masscheck.
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.comwrote:
This does remind me
In general, please stop worrying about your corpus being ideal. Our sample
size right now is so small that even non-ideal corpora would be helpful.
Get started with cron nightly masschecks then work on improving your corpus
later.
I personally include:
* The last 4 weeks of spam. I use
Hey folks,
Does anyone know the story of what is going on with NJABL?
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY/detail
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY/detail
You have the option of uploading your corpus to the central server to
process every night. But most people have privacy concerns about that if it
is their own personal ham. For this reason you have the option of running
the masscheck script yourself every night on your own server and to rsync
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg69546.html
Whitelists have almost zero impact on spamassassin's determination of ham vs
spam. Believe me. This is not harmful.
If you have any ham corpus it would be extremely useful to spamassassin. We
have a severe lack of variety
I think what he is failing to understand is the scores are irrelevant, as
the masscheck is only determining yes or no for each rule across a corpus.
Also current is referring to the nightly masscheck snapshot of svn trunk
including the latest rules.
This does remind me however that there is a
BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the nightly
masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants in order to
enable promotion of new rules to the sa-update channel, and to make it
possible to release new versions of spamassassin.
Warren
90 matches
Mail list logo
