On 4/17/2015 7:58 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 4/17/2015 6:46 AM, ma...@nucleus.it wrote:
Hi to all,
a saw that from spamassassin 3.4 Bayes can be stored on a Redis
database.
Is it possible also for Awl (auto_whitelist) ?
Or maybe in the future ?
We are currently looking at TxRep as a
On 4/17/2015 6:46 AM, ma...@nucleus.it wrote:
Hi to all,
a saw that from spamassassin 3.4 Bayes can be stored on a Redis
database.
Is it possible also for Awl (auto_whitelist) ?
Or maybe in the future ?
We are currently looking at TxRep as a replacement for AWL but no,
neither of them lends
Hi to all,
a saw that from spamassassin 3.4 Bayes can be stored on a Redis
database.
Is it possible also for Awl (auto_whitelist) ?
Or maybe in the future ?
thanks
Marco
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 01:05 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> The AWL manipulating options are rather limited, offering addition of a
> high scoring positive or negative entry, or plain removal of an address.
> In particular unlike Bayes, AWL doesn't work on a per-message basis.
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 09:11 -0600, Jesse Norell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 13:04 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 03.09.14 15:13, Jesse Norell wrote:
> > > Both today and in the past I've looked at some FP's that scored very
> > > high on
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 13:04 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 03.09.14 15:13, Jesse Norell wrote:
> > Both today and in the past I've looked at some FP's that scored very
> >high on AWL. At least today I dug up the old messages that caused AWL
> >to get o
On 03.09.14 15:13, Jesse Norell wrote:
Both today and in the past I've looked at some FP's that scored very
high on AWL. At least today I dug up the old messages that caused AWL
to get out of line, and trained them as ham. AWL's scores still show
the high scores on those
Hello,
Both today and in the past I've looked at some FP's that scored very
high on AWL. At least today I dug up the old messages that caused AWL
to get out of line, and trained them as ham. AWL's scores still show
the high scores on those (in this case I manually corrected
I got it all wrong: I was assuming that AWL works by using a tuple consisting
of to/from (in the database: username/mail). Now thanks to your explanation I
got it that the username is in fact only used for user-bound AWL. This means
that I can simply use site-wide AWL.
TxRep sounds quite
ML mail skrev den 2014-06-26 16:42:
Ok so if I understand you correctly you are saying that it is possible
to use AWL as site-wide having just one part of the e-mail exchange
(the "To:" field) and this works fine/reliabily?
incorrect question, incorrect answer :=)
the username in
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2014-06-26 16:34:
But the reason I'm posting is that many servers run sitewide AWL
without issue. Why do you feel it is useless?
multi recipient is handled better in amavisd-new, but its not very well
dokumented, if you always just get single recipient spam
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:42:50 -0700
ML mail wrote:
> Ok so if I understand you correctly you are saying that it is
> possible to use AWL as site-wide having just one part of the e-mail
> exchange (the "To:" field) and this works fine/reliabily?
To: isn't relevant, you eith
Ok so if I understand you correctly you are saying that it is possible to use
AWL as site-wide having just one part of the e-mail exchange (the "To:" field)
and this works fine/reliabily?
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:34 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 6/26/2014 10:31 AM, ML mail
On 6/26/2014 10:31 AM, ML mail wrote:
I am using the auto-whitelist feature of SpamAssassin stored into a
PostgreSQL database. It works fine but I have got one issue: as I am
calling SA from amavisd-new, the username stored in the AWL SQL table
is always "amavis". Now this rend
Hi,
I am using the auto-whitelist feature of SpamAssassin stored into a PostgreSQL
database. It works fine but I have got one issue: as I am calling SA from
amavisd-new, the username stored in the AWL SQL table is always "amavis". Now
this renders my AWL useless as the username shoul
On Monday 07 April 2014 08:00:38 Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Please move this patch to a bug for SA. Add more comments and some
> documentation for the feature and I don't see why we couldn't patch for
> you. However, also realize that I'm looking heavily at things lik
m line 440.
Best regards,
Nuno Fernandes
Please move this patch to a bug for SA. Add more comments and some
documentation for the feature and I don't see why we couldn't patch for
you. However, also realize that I'm looking heavily at things like
TxRep to replace AWL which is in trunk.
> Nevertheless i think the following one liner would do the trick (have to
> test it though):
>
> --- Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm.orig2014-03-24
> 11:31:18.0 +
> +++ Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm 2014-03-24 11:31:20.0 +
> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@
># or
Ivo Truxa wrote
>
> RW-15 wrote
>> Ivo Truxa wrote:
>>> meta AWL_FIX (URIBL_DBL_SPA || SOMETHING_ELSE || ANOTHER_ONE) && AWL
>>> < -3
>>
>> The value of AWL in the above is either 0 or 1, so the test is
>> unconditionally false
RW-15 wrote
> Ivo Truxa wrote:
>> meta AWL_FIX (URIBL_DBL_SPA || SOMETHING_ELSE || ANOTHER_ONE) && AWL <
>> -3
>
> The value of AWL in the above is either 0 or 1, so the test is
> unconditionally false. AFAIK there's no way to write a meta rule that
&
below,
they are not meant for you, they are here rather just for the reference:
Disabling AWL with the proposed patch has the following consequences:
1) AWL does not work and does not store the score when the condition in the
patch is met, hence not adjusting the sender history track in such cases
2
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Ivo Truxa wrote:
> You could also write a rule based on the concerned tag
> values, in combination with the AWL value, so that it does the same
> trick without the need to hack the code. Something in a way similar
> to this one:
>
On Sunday 30 March 2014 13:52:43 Ivo Truxa wrote:
> Nuno Fernandes-2 wrote
>
> > Yes.. you are correct. The result is not added to the AWL database but i'm
> > ok with that.
>
> Personally I think it makes no sense using AWL when you do not let it work,
Oh.. but it
Nuno Fernandes-2 wrote
> Yes.. you are correct. The result is not added to the AWL database but i'm
> ok with that.
Personally I think it makes no sense using AWL when you do not let it work,
and do not store all scores. A better place to make the modification is at
the bottom
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 16:18:42 Ivo Truxa wrote:
> Looks OK, but the problem is that the new score won't be added to the AWL
> database. So for example if AWL tells the average score is 1.0, your RBL
> tells it ought to be 10.0, AWL would normally reflect it, the average score
&
Looks OK, but the problem is that the new score won't be added to the AWL
database. So for example if AWL tells the average score is 1.0, your RBL
tells it ought to be 10.0, AWL would normally reflect it, the average score
for the given email/IP combination would increase, and the next tim
On Monday 24 March 2014 12:18:05 Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 03/24/2014 12:14 PM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 March 2014 07:50:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
> >>> Does this do it?
> >>>
> >>> score AWL 0
> >>> meta LOCAL_SCORE_AWL AW
On 03/24/2014 12:14 PM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2014 07:50:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>> Does this do it?
>>>
>>> score AWL 0
>>> meta LOCAL_SCORE_AWL AWL && !URIBL_DBL_SPAM
>>> score LOCAL_SCORE_AWL-10
&g
On Thursday 20 March 2014 07:50:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Does this do it?
> >
> > score AWL 0
> > meta LOCAL_SCORE_AWL AWL && !URIBL_DBL_SPAM
> > score LOCAL_SCORE_AWL-10
> >
> > where -10 is whatever score AWL usually has (I f
On 3/19/2014 1:44 PM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
--On March 19, 2014 9:58:29 -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
On 3/19/2014 5:14 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to disable awl (or at least score it 0.001) when a
special rule hit like:
if URIBL_DBL_SPAM
score A
--On March 19, 2014 9:58:29 -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
On 3/19/2014 5:14 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to disable awl (or at least score it 0.001) when a
special rule hit like:
if URIBL_DBL_SPAM
score AWL 0
endif
Is there any other way to achieve
On 3/19/2014 5:14 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to disable awl (or at least score it 0.001) when a special rule
hit like:
if URIBL_DBL_SPAM
score AWL 0
endif
Is there any other way to achieve this goal?
I can't think of anyway to do it without adding functionali
Hello,
Is it possible to disable awl (or at least score it 0.001) when a special rule
hit like:
if URIBL_DBL_SPAM
score AWL 0
endif
Is there any other way to achieve this goal?
Thanks,
Nuno Fernandes
--On Monday, July 29, 2013 10:19 PM +0200 Benny Pedersen wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount skrev den 2013-07-29 21:50:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=9.734 tagged_above=-10 required=3
WHITELISTED
No matter how much I feed these emails to SA for training as spam,
the user
its not whitelisted in sa, its a
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:50:51 -0700
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Running SA 3.4.0 from April 1st, 2013. I'm seeing an issue where
> obvious spam is reporting as whitelisted from SA for some users. We
> do not have per-user whitelisting, so it seems AWL as for some
> unknown a
Quanah Gibson-Mount skrev den 2013-07-29 21:50:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=9.734 tagged_above=-10 required=3
WHITELISTED
No matter how much I feed these emails to SA for training as spam,
the user
its not whitelisted in sa, its amavisd
dont blame sa for this :)
Running SA 3.4.0 from April 1st, 2013. I'm seeing an issue where obvious
spam is reporting as whitelisted from SA for some users. We do not have
per-user whitelisting, so it seems AWL as for some unknown and bizarre
reason, decided to whitelist this spam. The *same* emails for me get
mark
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 11:08 +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> I use many whitelisting/scoring methods so I have no need to AWL to do that.
> Only thing it "helped" in was getting spam through.
>
That was my experience too, until I turned it off.
I prefer to use a relatively draconian
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 3. Oktober 2012, 12:23:35 schrieb Henrik K:
> > You are really doing nothing more special than maintaining your own
> > blacklist. Hacking AWL is not the most elegant way of going about
> > it.
whole IP block has got high enough points already. So any single
sender in the IP range who is good prevents the whole IP block to be
marked evil.
> It also sounds like the data would balloon out quite a bit for
> per-user AWL on any significant scale.
Maybe. We don't use per-user A
Am Mittwoch, 3. Oktober 2012, 12:23:35 schrieb Henrik K:
> You are really doing nothing more special than maintaining your own
> blacklist. Hacking AWL is not the most elegant way of going about
> it. Of course it might be convenient if you are not collecting IP
> data any othe
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> Am Montag, 1. Oktober 2012, 18:28:30 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
>> This increases the AWL totscore value for know bad senders to >1000,
>> leaving a low chance that their mail passes the filters without being
>> marked as spam.
>
> Did no
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:55:30AM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> Am Montag, 1. Oktober 2012, 18:28:30 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
> > This increases the AWL totscore value for know bad senders to >1000,
> > leaving a low chance that their mail passes the filters without being
Am Montag, 1. Oktober 2012, 18:28:30 schrieb Michael Monnerie:
> This increases the AWL totscore value for know bad senders to >1000,
> leaving a low chance that their mail passes the filters without being
> marked as spam.
Did no one have time, or is this not interesting?
Running
Dear users of AWL via database,
I've just had an idea and want to hear your thoughts about this. When I
looked over our AWL, I found that lots of spammers come from the same IP
block. That is, from IPv4 only the first 2 bytes are logged (e.g.
111.222), and from IPv6 the first /48 (e.g. 2001
Back at Xmas, I went from Fedora 10 to Fedora 15. Since then I never noticed
that my MySQL AWL table has no entries. Here's what I have:
* spamassassin-3.3.2-7.fc15.x86_64
* In mysql
CREATE TABLE `awl` (
`username` varchar(100) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
`email` varchar(200) N
>> Den 2012-07-26 17:26, Nißl Reinhard skrev:
>>> reading the manuals, I've discovered that the AWL plugin isn't
>>> loaded anymore in spamassassin 3.3. Therefore I put the
>>> following lines into local.cf:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 02:57:26 +0
Hi Benny,
attached is the output of the below mentioned command.
As far as I read it, the AWL plugin gets loaded.
Bye.
--
Reinhard Nißl, TB3, -198
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Benny Pedersen [mailto:m...@junc.org]
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juli 2012 02:57
An: users
Den 2012-07-27 03:14, RW skrev:
It seems inelegant, but is there a practical reason why this
shouldn't
be done. Some optional plugins such as Botnet and iXhash load
themselves
from their own .cf files.
did --lint not show it ?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 02:57:26 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Den 2012-07-26 17:26, Nißl Reinhard skrev:
>
> > reading the manuals, I've discovered that the AWL plugin isn't
> > loaded anymore in spamassassin 3.3. Therefore I put the following
> > lines int
Den 2012-07-26 17:26, Nißl Reinhard skrev:
reading the manuals, I've discovered that the AWL plugin isn't loaded
anymore in spamassassin 3.3. Therefore I put the following lines into
local.cf:
oh no, do not put loadlugin into *.cf files its wrong pr design, but so
much wiki and ba
Hi,
reading the manuals, I've discovered that the AWL plugin isn't loaded anymore
in spamassassin 3.3. Therefore I put the following lines into local.cf:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL
use_auto_whitelist 1
but the file auto-whitelist hasn't been touched since the u
Ok, after restarting amavisd-new its working without AWL plugin. Thank you
all for
your replies. Im going to try a while without AWL to see results.
Thank you so much.
Antonio.
2012/2/22 Michael Scheidell
> On 2/22/12 8:17 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
>
>> Oh, thank you! I
On 2/22/12 8:17 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
Oh, thank you! I though that restarting spamd was sufficient.
you don't run spamd at all with amavisd-new. just wasting ram/cpu/swap.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* B
Oh, thank you! I though that restarting spamd was sufficient.
2012/2/22 Duane Hill
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 13:04:31 UTC,
> agutierr@gmail.comconfabulated:
>
> > I have tried in two ways:
>
> > 1) commenting out AWL loadplugin line in v310.pre, restarting sp
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 13:04:31 UTC, aguti...@gmail.com
confabulated:
> I have tried in two ways:
> 1) commenting out AWL loadplugin line in v310.pre, restarting spamd. Amavis
> log is showing that AWL rules are still triggered.
> 2) commenting out AWL loadplugin line
On 2/22/12 7:36 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
I have checked with spamassassin --lint the config and restart spamd.
I am still seeing AWL triggered on the amavis log:
and, you don't use spamd with amavisd-new.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*|
user_prefs
are commented out.
Im going to try setting auto-white list to 0 in this file...
Thank you all.
El 22 de febrero de 2012 14:04, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral <
aguti...@gmail.com> escribió:
> I have tried in two ways:
>
> 1) commenting out AWL loadplugin line in v310.pre, r
I have tried in two ways:
1) commenting out AWL loadplugin line in v310.pre, restarting spamd. Amavis
log is showing that AWL rules are still triggered.
2) commenting out AWL loadplugin line in v310.pre, and including
"use_auto_whitelist 0" in local.cf.
spamassassin --lint produce
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 12:36:31 UTC, aguti...@gmail.com
confabulated:
> Now, Im very confused. I have configured to NOT Use AWL.
> # Auto-Whitelist configuration
> # Deshabilitar Auto-whitelist
> use_auto_whitelist 0
> in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> I
Now, Im very confused. I have configured to NOT Use AWL.
# Auto-Whitelist configuration
# Deshabilitar Auto-whitelist
use_auto_whitelist 0
in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
I have checked with spamassassin --lint the config and restart spamd.
I am still seeing AWL triggered on the amavis
On 2/22/12 5:14 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
But in the MySQL shows up the record...
usernameemailipcount totscore
vscan mailer-dae...@relay.hostingconsult.ru
<mailto:mailer-dae...@relay.hostingconsult.ru> 194.587
-2.393
disable AWL.
Im afraid that it doesnt anything :-(
cmsa1:/tmp # spamassassin -R foo.dat
SpamAssassin auto-whitelist: removing address: xx...@zz.es
SpamAssassin auto-whitelist: removing address:
mailer-dae...@relay.hostingconsult.ru
SpamAssassin auto-whitelist: removing address: m...@checklicense.ru
SpamAssass
Den 2012-02-22 10:17, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral skrev:
2012/2/21 Bowie Bailey
$ spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist u...@example.com
cmsa1:/tmp # spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist
spamassassin -R spammsg.file
sa-learn --spam --showdots spammsg.file
do this for every bounce ema
2012/2/21 Bowie Bailey
>
>
> $ spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist u...@example.com
>
> --
> Bowie
>
Seems that it's not working for me. I have called spamassassin
--remove-addr-from-whitelist
but row is still on the MySQL database...
cmsa1:/tmp # spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist
Den 2012-02-22 09:46, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral skrev:
What do you think about that?
i dont think
Thank you all for your advices. I have checked the Maia DB (table awl) and
I have
a lot of records mailer-daemon%.ru with a negative scores. In conclusion, I
have a lot
of spam scoring between 0..5 (2.5, 2.8, etc) but not been considered spam.
So,
I think that deleting this records from the DB
On Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 21:25:08 UTC, michael.scheid...@secnap.com
confabulated:
> On 2/21/12 4:09 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> Den 2012-02-21 16:29, Duane Hill skrev:
>>
>>>
>>> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AWL.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 3.3.x have it
On 2/21/12 4:09 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-02-21 16:29, Duane Hill skrev:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AWL.html
3.3.x have it enabled so this url is okay :-)
use_auto_whitelist ( 0 | 1 ) (default: 1)
this line is to disable it pr user i
Den 2012-02-21 16:42, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral skrev:
[8409] dbg: auto-whitelist: sql-based get_addr_entry: found existing
entry for mailer-daemon@X|ip=XX.YY
ipv4/16 mask is in use, try change it to ipv4/24 or ipv4/32
So, its AWL deprecated? Is better solution remove the addresses from
Den 2012-02-21 16:29, Duane Hill skrev:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AWL.html
3.3.x have it enabled so this url is okay :-)
use_auto_whitelist ( 0 | 1 ) (default: 1)
this line is to disable it pr user in user_prefs, the plugin is still
enabled in
Den 2012-02-21 16:28, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral skrev:
0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is
sa-learn --spam from all that bounce msgs could help
-4.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the
AWL is not a whitelist with static scores for ham and spam
On 2/21/2012 11:21 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
> So, if I have a lot of spam getting negative score from AWL, the
> problem was
> that in previous moment these spam was not classified as "spam"
> (getting high score) and in conclusion AWL understand that is a legal
&
So, if I have a lot of spam getting negative score from AWL, the problem was
that in previous moment these spam was not classified as "spam" (getting
high score) and in conclusion AWL understand that is a legal sender?
Sorry if this cuestion is trivial :-( I am not pretty su
On 2/21/2012 10:42 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
> I know that Bayes and AWL are different thinks, but I think that if
> your non-spam
> thresold is low (-0.001 in my case) mails classified are non spam
> could be false positives. [1]
> It doesnt affect to the AWL table? I
I know that Bayes and AWL are different thinks, but I think that if your
non-spam
thresold is low (-0.001 in my case) mails classified are non spam could be
false positives. [1]
It doesnt affect to the AWL table? I think that AWL has auto-learn...
[8409] dbg: auto-whitelist: sql-based
; actual spam assassin system (postfix,
> spamassassin with amavisd-new and Maia). Tracing these messages, I see
> on the amavis log that the
> rule AWL is triggered with a negative score. Reading the documentation
> I think that the problem
> was a wrong auto-learn thresold for HAM
On Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 15:18:30 UTC, michael.scheid...@secnap.com
confabulated:
> On 2/21/12 10:11 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
>> rule AWL is triggered with a negative score. Reading the documentation
>> I think that the problem
>> was a wrong auto-learn
BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.5012]
4.0 BOUNCE_MESSAGE MTA bounce message
4.0 ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE Message is some kind of bounce message
-4.6 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Its a
On 2/21/12 10:11 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
rule AWL is triggered with a negative score. Reading the documentation
I think that the problem
was a wrong auto-learn thresold for HAM, the first week the system
starts to work. The initial
thresold for Ham was -0.001 and I think that this
these messages, I see on
the amavis log that the
rule AWL is triggered with a negative score. Reading the documentation I
think that the problem
was a wrong auto-learn thresold for HAM, the first week the system starts
to work. The initial
thresold for Ham was -0.001 and I think that this thresold causes
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Adam Katz wrote:
Even if we don't change what "AWL" means,
Curious that in English "awl" is a tool of the shoe-maker (in italian
called "lesina" : since it was used to cut off tiny pieces, it even
generated a verb "lesinare"
> I also have some thoughts about discarding "hammers" at the end of that
> document.
if awl had unixtime stamp for last change time, one could add time test
for at least x days where its was score aveageing, but if less then x days
dont give negative for ham
that would harden
e of 14 because it is in the auto white-list.
>>>> Shouldn't it receive a negative score?
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
>>>
>>> Despite its name, the AWL is a score averager, based on the sender's
>>> history (lim
ive a negative score?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
Despite its name, the AWL is a score averager, based on the sender's
history (limited by net-block).
I encountered that misconception so much that I altered its description
it in my local.cf:
describe AWLAdjust sco
negative score?
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
>
> Despite its name, the AWL is a score averager, based on the sender's
> history (limited by net-block).
I encountered that misconception so much that I altered its description
it in my local.cf:
describe AWL
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 22:32:02 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 12:48 -0800, JP Kelly wrote:
> > I'm not familiar enough to tell if an address is forged or not.
> > Here is the scoring from one of the spam messages from
> > autoconf...@amazon.com w
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 12:48 -0800, JP Kelly wrote:
> I'm not familiar enough to tell if an address is forged or not. Here is
> the scoring from one of the spam messages from autoconf...@amazon.com
> which I suspect tainted AWL:
Nope. The originating IP isn't even close to t
I'm not familiar enough to tell if an address is forged or not.
Here is the scoring from one of the spam messages from autoconf...@amazon.com
which I suspect tainted AWL:
Content analysis details: (29.4 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name descri
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 11:39 -0800, JP Kelly wrote:
> Yeah that sender's email address had been forged for a bunch of spam I
> received.
Without reading the following paragraph, I'd immediately suspect a
cracked account, not address forgery. The AWL is limited by address and
origi
re?
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
>
> Despite its name, the AWL is a score averager, based on the sender's
> history (limited by net-block).
>
>
> Given the rather high AWL score, this sender previously scored even much
> higher. You (or th
its name, the AWL is a score averager, based on the sender's
history (limited by net-block).
Given the rather high AWL score, this sender previously scored even much
higher. You (or the sender) didn't happen to use it for sending some
"test spam", checking SA is working?
Not necessarily. AWL both increases and decreases scores, based on
previous emails: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AutoWhitelist
On 03/06, JP Kelly wrote:
> I just found an incoming message which is ham but marked as spam.
> It received a score of 14 because it is in the auto whit
to 1%
[score: 0.]
14 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
clean out single-hit entries, but multi-hit
> >> persist forever, even when stale. (there are no timestamps on
> >> entries, so expiry isn't possible at present).
> > I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
> > scaling down t
xpiry isn't possible at present).
I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
scaling down the count/token values and discarding entries where the
count rounds-down to zero.
Well, yes, but this doesn't solve the situation where someone stops
mailing you. T
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:26:31 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On ons 11 aug 2010 19:35:35 CEST, RW wrote
>
> > That should be count/total-score not count/token.
>
> total-score/count
I actually meant it in the sense of "a-stroke-b" rather than
"a-divided-by-b"
> will also work with mask of 0
On ons 11 aug 2010 19:35:35 CEST, RW wrote
That should be count/total-score not count/token.
total-score/count
will also work with mask of 0.0.0.0/8 ?
sa below 3.3.x had it hardcoded to /16
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
, even when stale. (there are no timestamps on entries, so
> > expiry isn't possible at present).
>
> I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
> scaling down the count/token values and discarding entries where the
> count rounds-down to zero.
That should be count/total-score not count/token.
;t possible at present).
I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
scaling down the count/token values and discarding entries where the
count rounds-down to zero.
101 - 200 of 1057 matches
Mail list logo
