Michael Bellears wrote:
"I'm using 3.0.2 on a debian woody box. Its from www.backports.org
(great site)"
Ok, so you're using Spamassassin 3.0.2 on Debian. Are you
using Sendmail, qmail, courier, or postfix? I honestly don't
know that Debian uses as a default mailserver.
Exim.
Ok
> > "I'm using 3.0.2 on a debian woody box. Its from www.backports.org
> > (great site)"
> >
> Ok, so you're using Spamassassin 3.0.2 on Debian. Are you
> using Sendmail, qmail, courier, or postfix? I honestly don't
> know that Debian uses as a default mailserver.
Exim.
Matthew Lenz wrote:
- Original Message - From: "AltGrendel"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: my girlfriend is getting ticked :)
Mike Jackson wrote:
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The
false-negative was labeled 99% spam by Bayes
On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:21:01 PM, Matthew Lenz wrote:
> I just installed backports perl-libnet-dns (.48, hope that is new
> enough .49 is the newest). Is there anywhere I can check to see if
> 'network tests' (what the SURBL says needs to be enabled) are enabled?
Set your trust path corre
- Original Message -
From: "AltGrendel"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: my girlfriend is getting ticked :)
Mike Jackson wrote:
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The false-negative
was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
I don't see
On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:20:17 PM, Mike Jackson wrote:
>> Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The false-negative
>> was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
>>
>> I don't see any RBL checks, which might have made the difference on this
>> one, if it's already been seen and flagged.
Mike Jackson wrote:
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The
false-negative was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
I don't see any RBL checks, which might have made the difference on
this one, if it's already been seen and flagged. Do you have
Net::DNS installed and the RLB tests enab
Matthew Lenz wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_80_90,
HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID autolearn=no version=3.0.2
I see your false negative scored 99% on bayes. The BAYES_99 rule has a
much lower score
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:28 -0800, Morris Jones wrote:
> Mike Jackson wrote:
> > In my experience, it's more efficient to let the MTA handle the RBL
> > checks instead of Spamassassin. I can't remember what MTA the OP was
> > using, but it's trivial to set them up in Sendmail. On my employer's
>
On 30 Mar 2005 at 15:27, Matthew Lenz wrote:
> here is an example of the headers from an spam that wasn't caught
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_80_90,
> HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
> MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID autolearn=no
Mike Jackson wrote:
In my experience, it's more efficient to let the MTA handle the RBL
checks instead of Spamassassin. I can't remember what MTA the OP was
using, but it's trivial to set them up in Sendmail. On my employer's
boxes, I use the spamhaus.org lists, but on my personal box (where I c
Run an email through spamassassin with the -D debug flag and it will
tell you eerything.
Mojo
Matthew Lenz wrote:
I just installed backports perl-libnet-dns (.48, hope that is new
enough .49 is the newest). Is there anywhere I can check to see if
'network tests' (what the SURBL says needs to
Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The false-negative
was labeled 99% spam by Bayes.
I don't see any RBL checks, which might have made the difference on this
one, if it's already been seen and flagged. Do you have Net::DNS
installed and the RLB tests enabled? What happens i
I just installed backports perl-libnet-dns (.48, hope that is new
enough .49 is the newest). Is there anywhere I can check to see if
'network tests' (what the SURBL says needs to be enabled) are enabled?
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:15 -0800, Morris Jones wrote:
> Matthew Lenz wrote:
> > my girlfrien
Matthew Lenz wrote:
my girlfriend has been bitching at me for quite some time now to figure
out why spamassassin isn't catching the spam like it used to. I'm using
3.0.2 on a debian woody box. Its from www.backports.org (great site).
Here is an example of the X-Virus/Spam headers from a spam that
t all).
:(
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:02 PM
To: Spamassassin Users
Subject: Re: my girlfriend is getting ticked :)
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:45 -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:27 -0600, Matt
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:45 -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:27 -0600, Matthew Lenz wrote:
> [snip spam info]
> > Ideas where to start (other than having her change her email address
> > hehe)
>
> It doesn't look like you are using any of the SARE rulesets. There are
> 3 thing
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 15:27 -0600, Matthew Lenz wrote:
[snip spam info]
> Ideas where to start (other than having her change her email address
> hehe)
It doesn't look like you are using any of the SARE rulesets. There are
3 things I would do to start off... First, assuming that the 5000
messages
--On Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:27 PM -0600 Matthew Lenz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
here is an example of the headers from an spam that wasn't caught
Attach the whole message with headers to a list post.
19 matches
Mail list logo
