Josie Walls wrote:
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
Nope. I've been running a number of systems - personal and professional
- at 5 with no major runs of missed-spam or mistagged-ham (aside from
the period where
Josie Walls wrote:
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
I wouldn't.
We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine
everything with 9 or higher (I read the quarantine reports every
work day), and let
Jonas Eckerman writes:
Josie Walls wrote:
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
I wouldn't.
We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine
everything with 9 or higher (I read the quarantine
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine everything
with 9 or higher
That should have been
reject *and* quarantine everything with 9 or higher
/J
--
Jonas Eckerman, FSDB Fruktträdet
http://whatever.frukt.org/
http://www.fsdb.org/
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
We reject everything with a score of 18 or higher, quarantine everything
with 9 or higher
On 14.04.08 15:09, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
That should have been
reject *and* quarantine everything with 9 or higher
I thought you can reject *or* quarantine, the combintaion
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I thought you can reject *or* quarantine,
Wether that or is exclusive or not depends on the tools you
use. With MIMEDefang (wich we use) it isn't.
Since SpamAssassin has to be called after the complete message
has been received, there is no technical reason
Hello,
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
I suspect ISPs have their filter settings at 3 or less.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Josie
Josie Walls
Senior Email Deliverability Manager
WhatCounts,
On Friday 11 April 2008 19:53:30 Josie Walls wrote:
Hello,
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
i disagree.
Rather then setting the score lower, you should set specific test higher that
do match the spam specific to
Josie Walls wrote:
Hello,
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
I suspect ISPs have their filter settings at 3 or less.
Any insight would be appreciated.
I'm an ISP and we use 5 to mark and 10 to reject at smtp time
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 at 14:10 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
Josie Walls wrote:
Hello,
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
I suspect ISPs have their filter settings at 3 or less.
Any insight would be
Rick Macdougall wrote:
I'm an ISP and we use 5 to mark and 10 to reject at smtp time (not
bounce, smtp reject 551).
Same here. Dropping below 5 would cause way too many false positives.
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications www.speed.net
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:10:41PM -0400, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Josie Walls wrote:
Hello,
Would this group agree that requiring 5 hits in order to classify an email
as spam is too conservative a number?
I suspect ISPs have their filter settings at 3 or less.
Any insight would be
At 12:33 11-04-2008, Igor Chudov wrote:
Hey, this is interesting. I really don't care to process anythng with
score above 10. How can I block it on the sendmail level?
I have sendmail.
Install a milter which interacts with spamd. You can then reject
spam at the SMTP level.
Regards,
-sm
13 matches
Mail list logo
