> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 01:10:26PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote: >> Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Hi All >> > >> > For the following spam why am I getting 2.3? This is my report >> >> Dude, are you going to report every single missed spam you get? >> Missed > > My intention was not to report an spam. Rather if I can get some help > help to detect spam like that. Totally different intention that how > you > are labelling it > > I only expect an help on how to detect spam like that, or why my setup > did not detect that spam and if there is any suggestion out here in > the > mailing list. > > Are you saying I am NOT suppose to ask for help by showing a sample > spam > that I missed to detect? Is there another mailing list where I can get > help related to spams that my SA slipped to detect? If yes I would > happily redirect of emails of that nature to that list > > Hope I made my intention clear. > > You replied twice to my email to made your point. No wonder there are > 920 > msgs just from you stored now in the internet :-) > > Thanks anyway
Wow, relax man!! I'm no SA expert, nor do I claim to be, but in honesty, I find that by paying attention to this list as a lurker, you can find valuable information. At the beginning, if I was receiving new spam (new, to me), I would wander over to http://rulesemporium.com and look through the rulesets briefly to see if any of them looked like they would catch this _new_ spam. After time, I got familiar with what each ruleset did, and wouldn't do, and by paying close attention to what rules are hitting/missing, you can take individual rules and disable the ones you don't need. Every day I get at least one spam through that *looks* like it should hit certain rules, but if it doesn't, don't fret. Just put it in a Spam folder, and then let salearn have a crack at it. I find that SURBL's take a good majority off the top, after that, it's tweaking with rulesets. Make sure you check frequently for updated rulesets that may catch that new one that just *sneaks* by. I don't think it's anyone's intention to flame you, but the guidelines are clearly laid out in the Wiki as someone else suggested. Perhaps if you have this problem in the future, you could post a little of the troubleshooting you have done yourself, and also about what rules you _thought_ should of hit, then there would be a more legitimate reason for posting...ie: [example] SA did not catch this spam with the subject: [insert subject]. I assumed that rules x, xy, and z should of hit, but only one of them did. I found that some URI rules should of hit as well, and they didn't. I have tested my DNS on my server and it works ok... [/example] Regards, Steve > >> spam happens, it's not a bug. The only way to catch all spam is to >> send everything, ham and spam, to /dev/null. >> >> Please read the FAQ on the wiki: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DoYouWantMySpam >> >> Daniel >> >> -- >> Daniel Quinlan >> http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ > > -- > Asif Iqbal > PGP Key: 0xE62693C5 KeyServer: pgp.mit.edu > There's no place like 127.0.0.1 >
