Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> Scott Ryan wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to -
> > Re: Missing Checks :
> >> Scott Ryan wrote:
> >>> What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when
>
Scott Ryan wrote:
Many thanks, is there any way of sa-learn indication what new checks are now
availlable? Or is that just a bad idea?
If you mean you want to see the difference between the stock and updated
rulesets (and not something to do with sa-learn, the bayes tool) then
you could diff
On Thursday 17 August 2006 10:59, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to -
Re: Missing Checks :
> Scott Ryan wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to
> > -
> >
> > Re: Missing Checks :
> >> Scott Ryan wrot
Scott Ryan wrote:
On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to -
Re: Missing Checks :
Scott Ryan wrote:
What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when
scanning the same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the
following checks: dbg:
On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to -
Re: Missing Checks :
> Scott Ryan wrote:
> > What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when
> > scanning the same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the
> > following
Scott Ryan wrote:
What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when scanning the
same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the following checks:
dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE
Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam:
dbg: check:
te
What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when scanning the
same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the following checks:
dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE
Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam:
dbg: check:
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_0
