>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:30 AM
>To: SpamAssassin Users
>Subject: Re: Less spam blocked with 3.02 - AWL-related?
>
>
>On Thursday, February 17, 2005, 6:45:58 AM, Juergen Georgi wrote:
>
On Thursday, February 17, 2005, 6:45:58 AM, Juergen Georgi wrote:
> Score set 3 - the fourth score - applies when Bayes is enabled and
> network tests are enabled.
> In addition, non-zero score set 3 values in 3.0.2 are much lower
> than those in 2.64, e.g.
> 2.64: score SORTED_RECIPS 4.299 4.30
On Mon 2005-02-14 (09:07), Johann Spies wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:37:06AM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Can we get the output from the "spamassassin -D --lint" please?
>
> I should have read what you meant! Ok. Here it is ( have since added
> a few more rules ) :
>
>
>My next step would be to write something that would analyse my logs to
>see exactly what the rules are doing - and to try razor.
Here ya go! Ninja D is da man! :)
>I just whipped up a quick maillog parser display top rules firing in
>3.0. It reads all maillog* files and generates top firin
Thanks to everybody who responded to my email.
I have learnt a lot, added a few filters, removed some and removed the
awl-option.
> Average spam blocked per minute for the last
>
> Day WeekMonth Year (Since April-June last year)
> mail1 5.946.217.678.20
> mail2
Thanks! I am learning every day.
Johann
--
Johann Spies Telefoon: 021-808 4036
Informasietegnologie, Universiteit van Stellenbosch
"For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or domi
> I have installed them after visiting www.rulesemporium.com. It is not
> easy to see there which rules "will hit mor on spam and less on ham".
Yes it is. The rulesets that claim to be dangerous have a chance of hitting
more ham. Which is why they are dangerous.
In general, many rules comes in
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 12:07:44PM +0100, Sander Holthaus - Orange XL wrote:
> > debug: diag: module installed: MIME::Base64, version 2.12
>
> You should upgrade that one
This on a Debian Woody system. I have installed it from
www.backports.org and it is the latest one available for Debian.
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:37:06AM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> > 4) Can you share the output from a --lint with us?
> > >> $ spamassassin --lint
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
> > >
> > >What about spamassassin -D --lint?
> > >
> > >Kind Regards,
> > >Sander Holthaus
> >
> > LOL,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:17:37AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> I don't understand how you read that to think you should put a server IP
> after test. Perhaps you should read it again, but this time realize that
> the "13 servers" in the description is a misnomer.
>
> Clearly "domain.tld" shoul
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:37:06AM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> >
> >> > 4) Can you share the output from a --lint with us?
> >> $ spamassassin --lint
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
> >
> >What about spamassassin -D --lint?
> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >Sander Holthaus
>
> LOL, yeah I need to start typi
>
>> > 4) Can you share the output from a --lint with us?
>> $ spamassassin --lint
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
>What about spamassassin -D --lint?
>
>Kind Regards,
>Sander Holthaus
LOL, yeah I need to start typing exactly what I mean :)
Can we get the output from the "spamassassin -D --lint" ple
> > 4) Can you share the output from a --lint with us?
> $ spamassassin --lint
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
What about spamassassin -D --lint?
Kind Regards,
Sander Holthaus
At 06:41 AM 2/11/2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
What follows test should be a series of domain names to test the servers
in resolv.conf by querying the MX record for the domain. This should,
theoretically, not be one of your local domains if you want the test to be
a complete test of your servers. At
At 03:14 AM 2/11/2005, Johann Spies wrote:
dns_available test: localhost 146.232.128.10 146.232.128.1
erm What are you trying to accomplish with the above?
The "test" option should not be followed by a list of nameservers to query.
SA will end up inheriting that information from resolv.conf.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:57:20AM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> 1) Nice rulesets ;)
> 2) Please tell me you are using net-tests. SURBL? (might want to increase
> those scores.)
Yes, I am using them and they appear regularly in the logs.
skip_rbl_checks 0
dns_available test: localhost 146.23
> 3) Stop using AWL. Seriously, I found it did more harm then
> good and got big too fast.
I don't have any problem with it, and it is doing it's job quite well
actually. BUT I do think that it will only work if you have a good working
setup, in which there is a clear distinction in score's for
>-Original Message-
>From: Johann Spies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 2:20 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Less spam blocked with 3.02 - AWL-related?
>
>
>I have upgraded spamassassin on three mail (2.63 -> 3.02 on two and
>2.64 -> 3.02 on the other) se
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 11:48:18AM +0100, Sander Holthaus -
> Orange XL wrote:
> > Your (mail)logs might come in handy for this, if you write out
> > SpamAssassin's basic output there. With a basic Perl-script
> (you can
> > do this in almost any other script-language of course) you can see
Your (mail)logs might come in handy for this, if you write out
SpamAssassin's basic output there. With a basic Perl-script (you can do this
in almost any other script-language of course) you can see most likely
everything you need. Spam, ham and mail-scores, scan-times, tests that where
hit (!), et
Johann Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Average spam blocked per minute for the last
>
> Day WeekMonth Year (Since April-June last year)
> mail1 5.946.217.678.20
> mail2 5.045.956.486.69
> mail3 4.954.67* 6.236.85
This is not an especial
21 matches
Mail list logo
