Loren Wilton writes:
>
> Also be careful of writing the usual ill thought out and draconian rules
> youself like
>
> body MY_PORN_1/cock/i
> scoreMY_PORN_1100# eliminate evil words!
>
> That works just fine. Unless you maybe have a user or a client named John
> Babcock.
Or to t
> Forgive me for not understanding the porn filtering capability of SA. I
ran
> a new email (www.blarneystone.com/spam/spam2.txt) through the SA filter
(I
> didn't munge the headers this time). Do I understand it that if an email
> like that was sent from a URL not yet blacklisted, it would be sco
Title: RE: SA frequently skipping rules
The problem with writing rules for this, is generating FPs. I mean, I get email slike that from my wife all the time. ;)
I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets them. Well I hope other people don't get them from my wife.
Anway, the
OTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:47 PM
> To: Jim Smith
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SA frequently skipping rules
>
> Jim Smith wrote:
> > I'm getting lots of spam that are skipping rules. One that
> came in recently
> > wit
Oops, I sent that too quick.
It should be spamassassin -r < testmessage.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: SA frequently skipping rules
>
&
Jim Smith wrote:
> Thanks to Stuart and Daryl for your responses. I think I need to ask a basic
> question that I'm sure is a FAQ somewhere that I haven't located yet
> (honestly I've hunted!).
>
> How do I run a message through the spamassassin command line to get the
> score results on the scree
I typically use spamassassin -D < testmessage.
Kris
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: SA frequently skipping rules
>
> Thanks to S
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:12 PM
> To: Jim Smith; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SA frequently skipping rules
>
> This message does not hit any naughty words rules for me
> either (tested
> 3.1.0 and 3.0.3). SA doesn't generally have rules that
Jim Smith wrote:
> I'm getting lots of spam that are skipping rules. One that came in
> recently with lots of porn only got tagged for SORBS, NUMERIC HELO,
> and UNPARSEABLE RELAY (I don't know what unparseable relay means but
> seems like many emails have that lately). The full headers & message
>
This message does not hit any naughty words rules for me either (tested
3.1.0 and 3.0.3). SA doesn't generally have rules that hit a single
word. To avoid FPs, it is better to check for phrases and obfuscations.
However, the message does hit BAYES_99 and several networks tests on my
system g
Jim Smith wrote:
I'm getting lots of spam that are skipping rules. One that came in recently
with lots of porn only got tagged for SORBS, NUMERIC HELO, and UNPARSEABLE
RELAY (I don't know what unparseable relay means but seems like many emails
have that lately).
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY means that, w
I'm getting lots of spam that are skipping rules. One that came in recently
with lots of porn only got tagged for SORBS, NUMERIC HELO, and UNPARSEABLE
RELAY (I don't know what unparseable relay means but seems like many emails
have that lately). The full headers & message (uncensored) of that examp
12 matches
Mail list logo
