![]() X-spam-Status: hits=3.6 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,MISSING_MIMEOLE,REMOVE_PAGE X-Mailer: Produced by Microsoft Outlook Express. Subject: Absolutely No Doctors Appo¡ntments needed I want to be able to turn SCBL off when it gets out-of-hand while keeping SpamAssassin in the picture.ĭelivered-To: I fully expect that he will get carried away sometime in the future and play havoc on my filtering. I want this removed because Julian favors aggression an experimentation over stability. Then he also had to remove SpamAssassin due to the RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET tagging. Roy Lewallen posted in the old NNTP news group that he started getting all his e-mail blocked, and so removed the SCBL from his check-list. SC BLs your web-host provider's inbound MX, and suddenly ALL your e-mail gets blocked. However several SC users don't want to go to the trouble to create or find their own clean MXs, and they are susceptible to what I call "sudden total false positive syndrome." This happened to me. See my earlier post in the NG "Harrowing." I don't presently have a problem with the SCBL because of a laborious effort I made to create my own relay to prevent false-positives. ![]() Lawless, can you share some of your individual setup with us? Scores of FPs and what # you are holding SA tagged mail on would be interesting. I can defintely see a problem for users who want to use SA, but do not want to use the spamcop bl period, but really it sounds like the issue is FPs due to the "RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET" test and this can likely be solved by making adjustments vs turning it off. The question is: Is it more appropriate for me to raise my "SA held level" or for JT to lower the amount of points that "RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET" contributes? I currently have my "SA held level" set on 3 and if the "RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET" does contribute 2.25 then I likely have a problem. Now that JT has added additional tests, users may want to consider raising their "SA held levels" due to higher overall scores. The key is adjusting either the score that "RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET" contributes and/or adjusting the end user's "SA held level." From what I can see the "RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET" test contributes 2.25 by default, perhaps this is too much of a contribution for a single test? Also, since JT implemented SA I think it is fair to say that many users have probably dropped their individual "SA held levels" lower over time. So I figure if SA is configured optimally, then a message from a friend of mine who happens to be on the spamcop bl should make it through. ![]() The supposed glory of SA is that one spam characteristic does not by itself qualify the message as spam. If a SpamCop mail user chooses to ONLY turn on SA then theoretically one should get the most benefit of the spamcop bl. Lawless and all- I guess I have mixed feelings on this. Have you thought about using the rule known as "Antidrug"? I know you have concerns about doctors who may use spamcop mail and how this would affect them, but we could always find out from other admins of SA how serious a problem this really is.Ĭan you comment on whether or not all blades are using the same SA rules or not?Īnd, what blacklists are being used within SA to add to the cumulative scores, is it just the spamcop bl? and if so, is it implemented on all blades? ![]() I will post spam to the NG and reference them from this thread if I see anything coming through with low scores. Others will likely be able to provide feedback more quickly because I only receive about 20 spam per day and I know others can top that. Weird timing as I just decided this morning to turn off all the BLs available on my spamcop mail account and only use SpamAssassin. SAVE_THOUSANDS,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID,USERPASS version=2.63 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MORTGAGE_PITCH,MORTGAGE_RATES, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_A,HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY,J_BACKHAIR_11,J_BACKHAIR_12, X-spam-Status: hits=25.7 tests=BIZ_TLD,CLICK_BELOW,DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24,įORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS,HTML_70_80,HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE, X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 () on blade6
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |