> I have searched around rulesemporium without much success trying to find
> these LOCAL_OBFU_* rules. I don't suppose you could tell me the
> filename that they occur in could you? (I assume they will be in
> /etc/mail/Spamassassin or wherever your local.cf file is for your
> install).
Sorry, fo
ail a day.
Thanks again,
Darren
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 January 2005 09:53
> To: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
> rules
>
> On Thursday, January
On Thursday, January 13, 2005, 1:19:58 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
>> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> % dig 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a
>>
>> ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a
>> ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
>> ;; got answer:
>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUER
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 January 2005 01:07
> To: Jeff Chan
> Cc: Darren Coleman; Jack L. Stone; Loren Wilton;
> users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
Rul
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 4:57:57 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 8:15:12 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
>> Figured out why URIBL_SBL wasn't firing for me for that email - I can't
>> even resolve that domain! Have tried resolving it on several machines I
>> have shell acces
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 8:15:12 AM, Darren Coleman wrote:
> Figured out why URIBL_SBL wasn't firing for me for that email - I can't
> even resolve that domain! Have tried resolving it on several machines I
> have shell access to (including external machines who peer with
> different provid
Darren Coleman wrote:
Hi Loren,
Firstly, thanks for your help.
I have searched around rulesemporium without much success trying to find
these LOCAL_OBFU_* rules. I don't suppose you could tell me the
filename that they occur in could you? (I assume they will be in
/etc/mail/Spamassassin or whereve
Christopher John Shaker wrote:
In my useage, SpamAssassin 3.0.2 works *way* better than the 2.XX
versions of
SpamAssassin. I've been training my Baysian filters, and they work
really well now.
SA 3.0.2 works so well that I've deleted most of my apx 400 local rules,
which plugged
leaks through S
ker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Jack L. Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of RulesEmp
rules
At 04:36 AM
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 January 2005 15:29
> To: Jack L. Stone; Loren Wilton; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
> rules
>
> Hmm..
>
&g
anuary 2005 14:55
> To: Loren Wilton; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
> rules
>
> At 04:36 AM 1.12.2005 -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
> >Well, just for grins I ran it here:
> >
> >Content analysi
At 04:36 AM 1.12.2005 -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
>Well, just for grins I ran it here:
>
>Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> --
>--
> 2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SU
al.cf file is for your
install).
Thanks,
Darren
> -Original Message-
> From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 January 2005 12:37
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lots of spam being missed with SA 3.0.2 + lots of
RulesEmp
> rules
>
&g
Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SUBJ Obfuscated 'TADALAFIL' in subject
0
Well, just for grins I ran it here:
Content analysis details: (11.3 points, 4.6 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.6 LOCAL_OBFU_TADALAFIL_SUBJ Obfuscated 'TADALAFIL' in subject
0.3 SARE_WEOFFER
15 matches
Mail list logo
