On 04/22/2013 09:29 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
Are you ready/willing to report spam you receive to spamcop.net, razor,
pyzor, ...?
On 22.04.13 15:01, Thomas Cameron wrote:
That's an interesting question...
Each user has their own spam folders, so I guess I should create a
cron job per user
On 2013/04/22 06:27, Thomas Cameron wrote:
On 04/08/2013 03:52 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
[...]
I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I want to use
the X-S
On 04/22/2013 09:29 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
False positives in super-spam (>10 SA score) should be very rare.
Exactly my point.
Are you ready/willing to report spam you receive to spamcop.net, razor,
pyzor, ...?
That's an interesting question...
Each user has their own spam folders, so
On 04/22/2013 09:03 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.04.13 08:27, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Currently I'm using procmail recipes for individual users, but I'm
leaning heavily towards going back to spamass-milter, and rejecting
everything that scores 10 or more.
with thing like spamass-milte
Andrzej A. Filip skrev den 2013-04-22 16:29:
Are you ready/willing to report spam you receive to spamcop.net,
razor,
pyzor, ...?
or dnswl, return-path ? :)
--
senders that put my email into body content will deliver it to my own
trashcan, so if you like to get reply, dont do it
On 04/22/2013 03:27 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 03:52 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
>> On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
>>> should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I wan
On 22.04.13 08:27, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Currently I'm using procmail recipes for individual users, but I'm
leaning heavily towards going back to spamass-milter, and rejecting
everything that scores 10 or more.
with thing like spamass-milter I found REFUSING mail (not devnulling!)
sa safe. I a
On 04/08/2013 03:52 AM, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
[...]
I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I want to use
the X-Spam-Level header. But since it uses asterisk
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Bob Proulx wrote:
Thomas Cameron wrote:
I believe that would match ... and redirect the e-mail to /dev/null. Am
I right?
I would'nt comment on the exact procmail syntax. I have lots of procmail
rules but wrote them long ago and my memory is getting rusty. I would
commen
On Monday, April 08, 2013 05:06:57 PM Walter Hurry wrote:
> I agree that dev-nulling is generally a bad idea, but there may be
> exceptions.
>
> For example, I dump everything from hinet.net straight onto the floor.
FWIW, I get ham from hinet.net.
IMHO, it is not appropriate to drop mail no matt
On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 19:41 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:02:27 -0600
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately, no. While procmail implements some flavor of
> > > "extended" Regular Expressions, there are still quite some
> > > differences
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:02:27 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Unfortunately, no. While procmail implements some flavor of
> > "extended" Regular Expressions, there are still quite some
> > differences to other regex engines,
I got sufficiently fed up with procmail that I
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > * ^X-Spam-Level: \*{10}
>
> Unfortunately, no. While procmail implements some flavor of "extended"
> Regular Expressions, there are still quite some differences to other
> regex engines, like egrep's or PCRE. Most notably, the repetition
> opera
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 21:44 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
[ Bunch of good advise snipped. ]
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
> devnull/
>
> Since procmail uses Extended Regular Expressions there is one more
> optimization I would make. I wouldn't list out every star. It gets
> har
On 4/8/2013 1:06 PM, Walter Hurry wrote:
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:52:11 +0200, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
I would suggest redirecting such messages to another folder/maildir.
The folder should auto-purge old messages (e.g. older than 30 days).
Shit does happen. I remember at least one case in which
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:52:11 +0200, Andrzej A. Filip wrote:
> I would suggest redirecting such messages to another folder/maildir.
> The folder should auto-purge old messages (e.g. older than 30 days).
> Shit does happen. I remember at least one case in which mailing list
> (ham) thread about spam
On 04/08/2013 05:12 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> [...]
> I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though. I believe that I
> should insert a new rule between the first and second, and I want to use
> the X-Spam-Level header. But since it uses asterisks, which are
> interpreted as regex wildcar
On 04/07/2013 10:44 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Thomas Cameron wrote:
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level:.*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
/dev/null
I believe that would match 10 asterisks or more, and redirect the
e-mail to /dev/null. Am I right?
Mostly all okay. However I don't like the ".*" in the front of
it. That isn
Thomas Cameron wrote:
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Level:.*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
> /dev/null
>
> I believe that would match 10 asterisks or more, and redirect the
> e-mail to /dev/null. Am I right?
Mostly all okay. However I don't like the ".*" in the front of
it. That isn't likely to cause trouble but it
All -
I have a pretty simple .procmailrc setup for my home mail server. Right
now it looks like:
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
* < 256000
| spamc
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Flag:.*YES
spam
That dumps everything that is flagged as spam into my spam folder.
I want to delete any spam that scores over 10, though.
20 matches
Mail list logo
