Matt Kettler wrote:
If a spammer is using the same sending address over and over again,
blacklist them entirely.
That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – only that you’re not on any
“narrowcast” lists (e.g. “Email 200,000 British
Brian J. Murrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
score up?
And also useful[1] for the
Matt Kettler a écrit :
I am thinking about this case: Joe the spammer bombs you with mail that
is not detected as spam. he gets a negative awl.
That statement implies that there's a score for the user in the AWL.
The AWL score varies with what the current messages pre-awl score. The
AWL can
mouss wrote:
- is it enough to pass few messages? (in short, does manual training
have more weight than automatic awl learning?)
There's no such thing as manual training of the AWL. Actually, there's
no such thing as training for it either.
The AWL averages scores. nothing more,
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
ie: you
can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
expressed it poorly.
I guess as the OP of this thread, my point was that why
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
ie: you
can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
expressed it poorly.
I guess as the OP of this
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
something even more complete. Try feeding the message spamassassin -r
--add-to-blacklist.
Ahhh. I was mistakenly thinking that sa-learn == [ update-bayes
database +
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
To follow-up on this suggestion...
That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
something even more complete. Try feeding the message spamassassin -r
--add-to-blacklist.
It seems (looking at -D output) that
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
To follow-up on this suggestion...
That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
something even more complete. Try feeding the message spamassassin -r
--add-to-blacklist.
It
On Wed, December 3, 2008 05:48, Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice.
i have :-)
olso why spf / dkim whitelist is the way to go, let spammers try to
get whitelisted
microsoft got it wroung with Block Sender :)
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:57 -0500
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:56:58 -0500, Jeff Mincy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:57 -0500
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:38 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Is Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SAGrey part of the stat SA set? Neither
yum nor CPAN seem to be able to find it here... though that could
easily be down to user error.
Google finds it quite easily. ;)
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
score up?
Thots?
If a spammer
mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
score up?
Matt Kettler a écrit :
mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the
mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
score up?
Thots?
b.
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
score up?
Thots?
If a spammer is using the same sending
19 matches
Mail list logo
