Robin Lynn Frank wrote: > Some time ago, I changed the Habeas rule from -8 to a low positive > number. Not high enough to generate FPs, but definitely not welcome > mat for spammers.
Dangerous. I've created a number of local rules with slight negative scores for common sender domains here; I made the scores negative to specifically counteract the rather spammy email that many of our customers' families send. :/ Spammy newsletters have simply been whitelisted globally. If forged Habeas marks become a problem on the systems I admin, I'll probably bring the score up to -1 or so- but NOT over 0. I've seen the first of probably many of these come in to the support account I answer here with a score of 6.7/8. It would have been tagged to any of our customer accounts. However... the balancing positive scores are from a collection of local rules for ~3 points or so, and hitting on Razor2 for another 2. > Maybe I am short-sighted, but my primary responsibility is keeping > spam out of the company's inboxes. Not 6 months in the future, but > now. For a corporate system I'd likely be much stricter than I can be as an ISP sysadmin. In that respect my hands are tied a little more than yours; I *MUST* be very permissive in what's considered ham vs spam. :( -kgd -- "Sendmail administration is not black magic. There are legitimate technical reasons why it requires the sacrificing of a live chicken." - Unknown ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
