On 8/10/2010 7:55 PM, Dennis German wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:...
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
Can you please define "demoted".
Changed from enabled by default to disabled
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:55:45 -0400
Dennis German wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:...
> due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
>
> Can you please define "demoted".
It's no longer on by default.
On 10-Aug-2010, at 17:55, Dennis German wrote:
>
> My ISP MidPhase.com, part of uk2group.com, uses cpanel.net (used by many
> ISPs)
> which seems to be "stuck" on SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01)
>
> I request they upgrade last year and they weren't interested.
> I request this last week and
On ons 11 aug 2010 01:55:45 CEST, Dennis German wrote
I request they upgrade last year and they weren't interested.
I request this last week and they are still evaluating it.
you speak to the wrong people that maintains you server hosting and
belive thay also make the spamassassin packages f
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:...
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
Can you please define "demoted".
My ISP MidPhase.com, part of uk2group.com, uses cpanel.net (used by many
ISPs)
which s
ot trying to be mean, just asking, because if it's
> not of use to the general SA community, it doesn't belong in the
> mainline release. However, if it's useful.)
I want to use a previously-seen match list for a variety of purposes. I
already have my SAGrey plugin [1] that
On 7/22/2010 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 7/22/10 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>> Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
>>
> due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
>
> It might not be
On 7/22/2010 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list.
That's correct.
At the very least, The AWL is a score averager, so the first message
from a given From: and source IP combination cannot be AWLed. This
definitely will cause a no-show
On tor 22 jul 2010 16:47:21 CEST, Michael Scheidell wrote
On 7/22/10 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
well if running awl as it was 3.2.x then its wa
On 7/22/2010 11:24 AM, RW wrote:
> I don't recall seeing anything like that. Are sure it's not due to the
> IP address changing or AWL being short-circuited?
My testing is with local message files. If I use sa-awl to dump the
database I can see the counter increment, but the r
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:32:37 -0400
"Eric A. Hall" wrote:
>
> Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
> behavior it seems that the rule is only guaranteed to fire if the
> stored score for the tuple is significantly different than the
On 7/22/10 10:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
It might not be worth the cpu cycles
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
> *|
Sometimes the AWL rule doesn't appear in the list. From looking at the
behavior it seems that the rule is only guaranteed to fire if the stored
score for the tuple is significantly different than the message score, or
if the stored tuple has a very high stored score. But if the stored scor
Hi
I am trying to identify whether the AWL is working, I am no longer getting a
rule hit in the report.
What is the best way to see if its hitting as the spamassassin -D output
suggests it is working.
[29200] dbg: auto-whitelist: tie-ing to DB file of type DB_File R/W in
/home/spamd
On 4/9/2010 4:33 PM, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I have AWL enabled and it seems to be ok with helping out legitimate
> senders that occasionally send a "spammy" type message, but lately I
> have seen an increase where AWL is adding a negative score to a very
> blatant spam.
&g
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I know how AWL works and occasionally it will lower the score of a spam,
but it just seems to be happening more often lately.
Maybe the rulesets are improving and scoring spams higher than spams from
the same source have historically been scoring
On fre 09 apr 2010 22:33:39 CEST, "Dennis B. Hopp" wrote
Is there a way to have the AWL rule only triggered if there is a minimum
number of messages seen by that sender?
if AWL helping spam, then you need to prevent forged senders more
in sa 3.2.5 set
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssass
> Not that I'm aware of.
>
> Is the AWL score enough to prevent the messages from being marked as
> spam, or are you seeing the negative AWL score on messages that are
> marked as spam? It is normal for AWL to give negative scores to spam
> from time to time, but for t
Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I have AWL enabled and it seems to be ok with helping out legitimate
> senders that occasionally send a "spammy" type message, but lately I
> have seen an increase where AWL is adding a negative score to a very
> blatant spam.
>
> So my quest
I have AWL enabled and it seems to be ok with helping out legitimate
senders that occasionally send a "spammy" type message, but lately I
have seen an increase where AWL is adding a negative score to a very
blatant spam.
So my questions are, do people feel AWL is worth having enab
On Wednesday March 3 2010 11:20:26 Michael Monnerie wrote:
> We have AWL in PostgreSQL, the extended schema for SA 3.3:
> We get a lot of
> "INSERT: duplicate key violates unique contraint »awl_pkey«"
> messages, is that normal? Seems SA tries to insert without checking
We have AWL in PostgreSQL, the extended schema for SA 3.3:
# \d awl
Tabelle »public.awl«
Spalte | Typ | Attribute
+-+
username | character
On 27.1.2010 10:43, Henrik K wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:38:38AM +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to install it via CPAN or debian deb, so I do not have the
>> sql-readme available.
>>
>> The AWL format changed, can someone post t
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:38:38AM +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> I'm trying to install it via CPAN or debian deb, so I do not have the
> sql-readme available.
>
> The AWL format changed, can someone post the MySQL desc output please?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/s
I'm trying to install it via CPAN or debian deb, so I do not have the
sql-readme available.
The AWL format changed, can someone post the MySQL desc output please?
--
http://www.iki.fi/jarif/
That secret you've been guarding, isn't.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ages use a different
format for memcached than the C api.
But the theory is sound and for something like having AWL integrated into
postfix, this would be an ideal way to handle it as it's fast and can be
modified externally.
With that said, I spend some time last night thinkin
IN
>, without password of course if you want to share
>it, but i belive what you do is that you have awl data in sql and use
>this from a postfix mysql map ?
yes.
>i had this in mind also but newer found a good stable query to make it
>
>>I assume you are running some type of
are
it, but i belive what you do is that you have awl data in sql and use
this from a postfix mysql map ?
i had this in mind also but newer found a good stable query to make it
I assume you are running some type of background process that
generates the list of senders based upon some cri
> I don't let that junk get past envelope stage:
>
> postmap -q "weekendhotdeals.info" mysql:/usr/local/etc/postfix/mysql-
> from_senders_rhsbl.cf
> 554 RHSBL_DOMAIN
>
I assume you are running some type of background process that generates the
list of senders based upon some criteria. Can you
-- Original Message --
From: Gary Smith
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:29:24 -0700
>I've been finding a lot of singletons in the AWL db for domains that are all
>spam. Is there a way put an entire domain into AWL or set it up to give an
>ave
I've been finding a lot of singletons in the AWL db for domains that are all
spam. Is there a way put an entire domain into AWL or set it up to give an
average score for that domain?
Obviously I can put this directly into the config file but I'm looking for a
less intrusive way
I am trying to setup spamassasin with per-user config:
user prefs are stored in ldap, bayes and awl in sql database.
Most of the things works but the sql parts.
Indeed when spamd proceed a message I get weired warning, about DB
in
On 5-Aug-2009, at 02:15, a...@exys.org wrote:
The point is that scores below 2 are never spam,
Er... that's certainly not true.
--
*** AgentSmith sets mode: +m
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:15:00 +0200
a...@exys.org wrote:
> 2 to 5 is the sweetspot. That message in question actually proved it
> is working, since the URIBL hits came later. Then it scores >10 so
> it gets rejected.
I noticed earlier that you were greylisting for only 60s; that seems
like a fa
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 22:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> turning off AWL and autolearn (optionally only when run at SMTP time) would
> help you here. Although using such setup you loose much of advantages (like
> AWL ;-) and especially personalising...
>
There are cases wh
;
> My guess is that it scored 2 on the first try, then later it would have
> scored above 10 due to surbl listings, but awl kicks in and lowers the
> score thinking the greylisted mail was an independent message.
that's it! you can look at spamd logs and search for the same mess
first try, then later it would have
> scored above 10 due to surbl listings, but awl kicks in and lowers the
> score thinking the greylisted mail was an independent message.
With most greylisting systems, the temporary reject is before the data
section (which helps save bandwidth), so it&#
enough to hit that. It didn't
score above 10, because that would have been rejected at smtp time.
My guess is that it scored 2 on the first try, then later it would have
scored above 10 due to surbl listings, but awl kicks in and lowers the
score thinking the greylisted mail was an indepe
ail appear in the log?
>
> For the mail to be logged as rejected by a greylister *after* its been
> through SA it must also have been inspected by AWL and therefore it did
> affect the AWL database.
the question is, why it scored hammy? aep, how did it score before
greylisting
ylister *after* its been
through SA it must also have been inspected by AWL and therefore it did
affect the AWL database.
Martin
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have
On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote:
> See the below message parts
> (the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
> Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
> while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
> what AWL is doing here.
> I have obviou
Please do not quote me out of context.
Sorry. didnt find an apropriate way to respond to two statements in one
sentence.
Again, the greylisting prior to receiving this spam is not the reason.
SA, or more specifically AWL, does not know about that.
It is. I forgot to mention i run SA
ds
> <= virenwarndie...@virenschutz-downloaden.info
> H=host231.dhms-domainmanagement.net [91.199.51.231] P=esmtp S=3223
> id=knuula.a6m...@localhost
I guess that's the Envelope-From? AWL looks at the From: header.
Also, SA doesn't necessarily have seen that From / net-block add
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:18 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
> > This assumption is wrong. You did receive a message from the From:
> > header address and the same originating
> > net-block in the past.
> >
> >
> Should I disable AWL, or can i
> unlearn it?
nt.net [91.199.51.231] P=esmtp S=3223
id=knuula.a6m...@localhost
Greylisting is rather pointless when SA is going to remove the scoring
gained through later listing again. Should I disable AWL, or can i
unlearn it?
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:09 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote:
> See the below message parts
> (the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
> Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
> while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
> what AWL is doing here.
>
See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit
raged Weight List" or something similar.
It needs another TLA (three letter acronym), or maybe more,
whatever. Even
AHBSASWAWB, as written my Matt Kettler, would be better than AWL.
That would break any existing configuration. There's bugreport
opened for
this (i commented today)
t;Averaged Weight List" or something similar.
On 28.05.09 12:06, Michael Monnerie wrote:
The name is really a mess. Even if you'd call it "Averaged Weight List",
when you read AWL then AutoWhiteList comes to your mind, right?
no.
It comes to your mind only because
hael Monnerie wrote:
> The name is really a mess. Even if you'd call it "Averaged Weight List",
> when you read AWL then AutoWhiteList comes to your mind, right?
no.
It comes to your mind only because it was (and yet is) named that way. If
there would be no "auto white
> You still aren't understanding the wiki or the AWL scoring or what AWL
> is trying to do.
Ah, but it only seems I'm daft, today...:-)
>If I get spam from 1000 senders, they all end up in my
>AWL???
>
> yes. every email
#x27;d call it "Averaged Weight List",
when you read AWL then AutoWhiteList comes to your mind, right? It needs
another TLA (three letter acronym), or maybe more, whatever. Even
AHBSASWAWB, as written my Matt Kettler, would be better than AWL.
I don't really mind, just change it. Someo
Linda Walsh wrote:
> To be clear about what is being white listed, would it
> hurt if the 'brief report for the AWL', instead of :
> -1.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
>
> it had
> -1.3 AWLAWL: 'From: 518501.com
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Linda Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>> I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
>>> as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
>>
>> Any sender who has sent mail to you previous
On Wed, May 27, 2009 21:48, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AutoWhitelist
> At face value, this seems very counter productive.
read the docs one more time
> If I get spam from 1000 senders, they all end up in my
> AWL???
yes
> WTF?
not here please
Linda Walsh wrote:
> We go
> around redefining words to suit reality and catch the heat when the
> rest of the world doesn't understand our meaning:
Please repeat after me:
AWL is not an auto whitelist
AWL is not an auto whitelist
AWL is not an auto whitelist
It's one o
Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Linda Walsh
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:48:43 -0700
Bowie Bailey wrote: >
At face value, this seems very counter productive.
You still aren't understanding the wiki or the AWL scoring or what AWL
is trying to do.
Ah, but
On 27-May-2009, at 13:48, Linda Walsh wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood
out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your
AWL. This is
From: Linda Walsh
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:48:43 -0700
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>> I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
>> as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
>
> A
Linda Walsh wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most
Linda Walsh wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA. Read the wiki.
http
means that AWL really does work as an auto-white-list for us.
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | ... clueless he is not. He's just selective about which
aprilcottage.co.uk | clues to pay attention to.
| -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, LuKreme wrote:
No, the senders AWL HURTS new spam. If the score is -2 from the AWL
then -2 > * -0.2 = 0.4
Ah. Missed the negative. Then this particular piece of the logic is good.
The odds of any AWL(perIP) other than the legit sender having a negative
average
x27;s address has been used as a spoofed sender
before that legitimate sender makes first contact with a new
correspondent. But as I understand your logic, there is no 'rule' to
distinguish the 'first' AWL entry as 'special' from all the rest...
just that 'o
RW a écrit :
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:49:29 +0200
> mouss wrote:
>
>
>> on the other hand, a spammer can forge Received headers. and this is a
>> serious problem. Using "untrusted" received headers is broken.
>
> The point of AWL is to tweak ham scores t
efore
that legitimate sender makes first contact with a new correspondent. But
as I understand your logic, there is no 'rule' to distinguish the 'first'
AWL entry as 'special' from all the rest... just that 'others' exist...
Let's lay out the logic here
ender, then yes, the first mail would
be penalized. But is this ever the case?
Let's lay out the logic here:
1 Check AWL
2 AWL is positive or does not exist
a Check for other AWL entries using same address but different hosts.
i If there is an AWL with a negative score, then mult
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 29-Apr-2009, at 15:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
Apologies for original brevity, but my comment was a criticism of the
proposal to start weighing *all* mail from a specific sender according to
whether the IP was the 'most common' used for that address Ess
RW wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:49:29 +0200
> mouss wrote:
>
>
>
>> on the other hand, a spammer can forge Received headers. and this is a
>> serious problem. Using "untrusted" received headers is broken.
>>
>
> The point of AWL
-Original Message-
From: mouss [mailto:mo...@ml.netoyen.net]
Sent: woensdag 29 april 2009 20:53
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: 'anti' AWL
> on the other hand, a spammer can forge Received headers. and this is
> a serious problem. Using "untrusted
t trust paths is wrong as a result.
> By your cronological definition of first and last (which is the same as
> mine), that's the the FIRST non-private address.
>
> It makes sense to me, if I send you an email, the AWL entry should use
> my IP address not a random gmail server.
Th
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:49:29 +0200
mouss wrote:
> on the other hand, a spammer can forge Received headers. and this is a
> serious problem. Using "untrusted" received headers is broken.
The point of AWL is to tweak ham scores towards the mean to avoid
outlying high-scores caus
On 29-Apr-2009, at 15:31, Charles Gregory wrote:
Apologies for original brevity, but my comment was a criticism of
the proposal to start weighing *all* mail from a specific sender
according to whether the IP was the 'most common' used for that
address Essentially changing it from what yo
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Jeff Mincy wrote:
*someone* is getting their AWL reputation trashed every time a
spammer forges their e-mail.
AWL stores the IP/16 address with the email address. So your awl
reputation is not being trashed by forged e-mail that comes from a
different IP address
From: Charles Gregory
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
I just turned off my AWL today, because of FP issues but
> f...@example.com sends me lots of mail. Say it's over 100. It's all ham
and
> it all comes from mail.example.com.
, the AWL entry should use
my IP address not a random gmail server.
Considering that lots of people have dynamic routable addresses, this
seems like a bad idea for a big group of people not using WebMail.
Regards
/Jonas
--
Jonas Eckerman
Fruktträdet & Förbundet Sveriges Dövblinda
http://www
t;> of view that most folks work from when thinking about network
>>> topologies.
>> Darnit, I should have checked before sending.
>>
>> The AWL uses the LAST non-private..
>
> Maybe one of us is reading the perl wrong (and it could well be me), or
> we a
I just turned off my AWL today, because of FP issues but
f...@example.com sends me lots of mail. Say it's over 100. It's all ham and
it all comes from mail.example.com. The AWL for this email couplet is , say
-2.1. An email comes in from f...@example.com but
t network
> > topologies.
>
> Darnit, I should have checked before sending.
>
> The AWL uses the LAST non-private..
Maybe one of us is reading the perl wrong (and it could well be me), or
we are talking at cross purposes. As I see it, it's going through the
list of IP
On 28-Apr-2009, at 20:14, Matt Kettler wrote:
The AWL uses the LAST non-private..
This is, IMO, completely broken.
Yep, have to agree. This is seriously retarded.
--
I love as only I can, with all my heart
rld" point of view that most folks work
> from when thinking about network topologies.
>
Darnit, I should have checked before sending.
The AWL uses the LAST non-private..
This is, IMO, completely broken. Why are we allowing folks to declare
internal_networks if we're not goin
LuKreme wrote:
> On 28-Apr-2009, at 15:38, RW wrote:
>> It's based on the first routable IP address,
>
>
> Well, that's a very silly thing for it to be looking at. It should be
> looking at the LAST routable IP address outside of the trusted
> network. Looking at the first routable address is comp
On 28-Apr-2009, at 15:38, RW wrote:
It's based on the first routable IP address,
Well, that's a very silly thing for it to be looking at. It should be
looking at the LAST routable IP address outside of the trusted
network. Looking at the first routable address is completely worthless.
hat that doesn't currently cause a problem, but
would with your scheme.
> The AWL has a confidence based on number of
> messages received, right? If I get messages from b...@example.com that
> come from a variety of servers, the confidence is much lower than if
> they all come from
es or what is used there.
This would require much more logic that is curerntly in AWL.
No it wouldn't. The AWL has a confidence based on number of messages
received, right? If I get messages from b...@example.com that come from
a variety of servers, the confidence is much lower than i
From: LuKreme
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:43:46 -0600
OK, working on my first cup of coffee this morning, so maybe this has
potential.
The way the AWL works is by keeping track of the origin of emails,
both the address and the server (the top line Received header
On 28.04.09 08:43, LuKreme wrote:
> OK, working on my first cup of coffee this morning, so maybe this has
> potential.
>
> The way the AWL works is by keeping track of the origin of emails, both
> the address and the server (the top line Received header?) that send the
> em
OK, working on my first cup of coffee this morning, so maybe this has
potential.
The way the AWL works is by keeping track of the origin of emails,
both the address and the server (the top line Received header?) that
send the email. So, lets say that I have a lot of email from f
(valid
only in local.cf). But I guess if the admin wants to make sure no users
can turn it on, then they can comment out the loadplugin.
It probably changed when AWL became a plugin. Our setup allows the
end user to choose whether they want to use the option or not through
SquirrelMail. The default
on (valid
>>> only in local.cf). But I guess if the admin wants to make sure no users
>>> can turn it on, then they can comment out the loadplugin.
>>
>> It probably changed when AWL became a plugin. Our setup allows the
>> end user to choose whether they want
sure no users
can turn it on, then they can comment out the loadplugin.
It probably changed when AWL became a plugin. Our setup allows the end user
to choose whether they want to use the option or not through SquirrelMail.
The default set up in local.cf has the option turned off.
I could be
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Matt Kettler wrote:
Interesting. use_auto_whitelist used to be an admin-only option (valid
only in local.cf). But I guess if the admin wants to make sure no users
can turn it on, then they can comment out the loadplugin.
It probably changed when AWL became a plugin. Our
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 00:21 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 4/23/2009 12:13 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > My bet is... You will see spam to thisisonlytestmessage@ and mangled
> > variants thereof. :)
>
> don't forget 'akstc.*\@'
>
> :-)
Hah, seriously? *grep* Nah, you just made that
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 16:47 -0500, Luis Croker wrote:
>
>> Hi.. You have to disable the plugin. I put a comment in this line in
>> v310.pre file and restart the daemons...
>>
>> #loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL
&g
On 4/23/2009 12:13 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:>
My bet is... You will see spam to thisisonlytestmessage@ and mangled
variants thereof. :)
don't forget 'akstc.*\@'
:-)
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 23:58 +0200, sebast...@debianfan.de wrote:
> > May I ask, why? Just curious.
>
> I bet with a friend about spammers and i have an virtual server which i
> don't need anymore - the contract ends in may - so i used some domains for
> spam honeypots because their mx-records are
201 - 300 of 1057 matches
Mail list logo
