Re: fighting spam || avoiding spam
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> wrote:
[...]
> BTW: We have to be really stupid to accept messages from open proxies
> ourselves at the debian.org domain. Would anyone second a General Resolution
> mandating the use of xbl.spamhaus.org in all MXs for debian.org?
[...]
beep. false positives.
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:15:02 -0400
From: Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20040602141502.GA19945@torrent>
From: "Peter Rockai (mornfall)" <mornfall@danill.sk>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:03:36 +0200
Message-Id: <20040531130336.BA32640E9A6@lorien.logisys.sk>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:42:13 -0400
From: Simon Law <sfllaw@debian.org>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID: <20040528124213.GB7192@uwaterloo.ca>
[...]
I've enabled tagging xbl in spamassassin more than a month ago and out
of 38[1] messages on d-d with sa-score <=10[1] that were tagged by SBL there
were 12 nonspams.
cu andreas
[1] Due to my usage pattern the spam/ham score is not correct, only
about 50% of the original spam is still present in the mailbox,
changing SBL's success rate from 12/38 to ~12/76.
[2] I move away anything with bigger score.
--
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel
Reply to: