Scott Wertz wrote:
I think this is an easy question, but I haven't been able to find an
answer. If I'm using spamassassin 3, invoking it via procmail as just
'spamassassin' and testing for the result, and I trust that any message
carrying a URL that's listed on surbl.org or spamhaus.org is 100% sp
> Scott Wertz wrote:
> > I think this is an easy question, but I haven't been able to find an
> > answer. If I'm using spamassassin 3, invoking it via procmail as
just
> > 'spamassassin' and testing for the result, and I trust that any
message
> > carrying a URL that's listed on surbl.org or spam
On 01/07/05 09:51 PM, Michele Neylon::Blacknight Solutions sat at the `puter
and typed:
> Scott Wertz wrote:
> > I think this is an easy question, but I haven't been able to find an
> > answer. If I'm using spamassassin 3, invoking it via procmail as just
> > 'spamassassin' and testing for the re
Good evening, Scott,
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Scott Wertz wrote:
I think this is an easy question, but I haven't been able to find an
answer. If I'm using spamassassin 3, invoking it via procmail as just
'spamassassin' and testing for the result, and I trust that any message
carrying a URL that's liste
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 16:58, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> > Couldn't you just increase the scores to 100?
>
> That would be tha answer. I believe "how" might also have been part of
> that question.
I thought it was...sorry if I wasn't clear, but "how" is exactly what
I'm after.
>
> Search for the U
On 01/07/05 05:05 PM, Scott Wertz sat at the `puter and typed:
> On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 16:58, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
>
> > > Couldn't you just increase the scores to 100?
> >
> > That would be tha answer. I believe "how" might also have been part of
> > that question.
>
> I thought it was...sorry
On 01/07/05 05:03 PM, William Stearns sat at the `puter and typed:
> Good evening, Scott,
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Scott Wertz wrote:
>
> > I think this is an easy question, but I haven't been able to find an
> > answer. If I'm using spamassassin 3, invoking it via procmail as just
> > 'spamassas
Louis LeBlanc wrote:
On 01/07/05 05:05 PM, Scott Wertz sat at the `puter and typed:
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 16:58, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
Couldn't you just increase the scores to 100?
That would be tha answer. I believe "how" might also have been part of
that question.
I thought it was...sorry if I w
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 17:10, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> > >
> > > So you might want to add the following to your user_prefs:
> > > score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0 100 0 100
> That *is* the per-user basis. Each user has a
> ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file. Just put your score mods there.
So it is. I'm
On 01/07/05 05:17 PM, Scott Wertz sat at the `puter and typed:
> I'm really regretting my new year's resolution to switch to
> decaf.
Blasphemer!!! :)
--
Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :)
http://www.keyslapper.org ԿԬ
On Friday, January 7, 2005, 2:03:48 PM, William Stearns wrote:
> I personally have trust in the surbl's, so I have no problem
> recommending that people increase the score if they want. Might I humbly
> recommend increasing the surbl score to something between 2 and 5, so that
> if surbl
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 9:18 PM
>To: SpamAssassin Users
>Subject: Re: Implicit trust of surbl and sbl
>
>
>On Friday, January 7, 2005, 2:03:48 PM, William Stearns wrote:
>>
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 11:26, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> SA Rules Rule #1: No single rule should EVER cause an email to be marked as
> spam.
>
> Interestingly enough..
>
> SA Rules Rule #2348: All pron spam should be diverted to the marketing dept.
Interestingly enough, my previous filtering s
At 08:43 PM 1/10/2005, Scott Wertz wrote:
That said, I have another question. Where can I find a definition of
the four numbers in the surbl (and others) scores in 50_scores.cf?
Assigning a single score for MAPS is simple enough, but what are these?
score SPF_SOFTFAIL 0.500 0.842 0.500 0.500
From
I have used the following rules (which greatly overlap the existing URI
rules) to drive up scores, while not repeating the same tests or increasing the
scores for existing tests. YMMV, but they work for me (v3.0.x).
uridnsblURIBL_COMPLETEWHOIS
combined-HIB.dnsiplists.complet
On Friday, January 7, 2005, 9:02:47 PM, List User wrote:
> I have used the following rules (which greatly overlap the existing
> URI
> rules) to drive up scores, while not repeating the same tests or increasing
> the
> scores for existing tests. YMMV, but they work for me (v3.0.x).
> u
16 matches
Mail list logo
