On 10/03/2023 10:26, John McMurray via Exim-users wrote:
I'd also like to be able to increase the $spam_score_int variable so that mail
clients can decide how they want to handle higher spam scores.
That variable is set by a call to SpamAssasin. Your code snippet doesn't
mention it; it's uncl
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users @ 2023-01-26 14:23 :
> On 26/01/2023 10:31, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users wrote:
>> with a score of -12.6
>
> How was that part verified?
Thanks - I shouldn’t write to mailing lists when I have a cold. I was mislead
by the original mail from the user. The mail hit
On 26/01/2023 10:31, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users wrote:
with a score of -12.6
How was that part verified?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wi
On 26/01/2023 14:43, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
> The ">" comparison operator accepts integers, argument "-12.6" should raise
> an error. Negative values are valid. You can strip out dot with ${sg{..}},
> for example. Maybe there are some more elegant solutions...
But $spam_score_i
Hello.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:31:24AM +0100, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users
wrote:
> deny message = delivery error with obfuscating details
> condition = ${if >{$spam_score_int}{120}{1}{0}}
>
> Usually this is no problem. But now I have a user who got a mail that was
> denied with a sc
On 09.01.2010 23:54, Peter wrote:
> thanks a lot Kirill, Heiko and Ted for your help. I got a little bit
> deeper. I don't want to scan the email in the ACL because I can't train the
> bayes-filter user-specific in ACL. In ACL I can only use a bayes-filter for
> one "system-wide" user.
Using user
* Peter [2010-01-09 23:54]:
>
>Hello,
>
>thanks a lot Kirill, Heiko and Ted for your help. I got a little bit
>deeper. I don't want to scan the email in the ACL because I can't train the
>bayes-filter user-specific in ACL. In ACL I can only use a bayes-filter for
>one "system-wide" user.
>
>So I to
Hello,
thanks a lot Kirill, Heiko and Ted for your help. I got a little bit
deeper. I don't want to scan the email in the ACL because I can't train the
bayes-filter user-specific in ACL. In ACL I can only use a bayes-filter for
one "system-wide" user.
So I took Kirill's hint, that it's possible
* Heiko Schlittermann [2010-01-09 13:09]:
> > > I'm using the "old" integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
> > > following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
> > > (transport=pipe):
> >
> > I believe $spam_scrore_int is only available when using the "new"
> > i
Ted Cooper (Sa 09 Jan 2010 12:28:09 CET):
> Peter wrote:
> > I'm using the "old" integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
> > following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
> > (transport=pipe):
>
> I believe $spam_scrore_int is only available when using the "new"
Peter wrote:
> I'm using the "old" integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
> following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
> (transport=pipe):
I believe $spam_scrore_int is only available when using the "new"
integration of SpamAssassin into Exim in the ACLs.
Yo
Hi,
--On Dienstag, 25. November 2008 01:28 -0800 Phil Pennock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your condition is true for scores greater than 40.0 (and 40.0 itself is
> not large enough, I suspect >= would be closer).
i configured that integer for a long while now and thought it would be
working.
H
On 2008-11-24 at 16:49 +0100, Christian Meutes wrote:
> what could be the reason that $spam_score is set but $spam_score_int isn't?
That's not happening.
> acl_check_data:
>
> warnmessage = X-Spam-Score: $spam_score ($spam_bar)
> spam = nobody:true
> warnmessage =
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> There's a better way to do it without collateral spam described in a
>> guide somewhere, but what you have is working for you so .. yeah.
>
> Well, I could just blackhole the message, of course.
I was thinking more along the lines of only accepting the email
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> There's a better way to do it without collateral spam described in a
>> guide somewhere, but what you have is working for you so .. yeah.
>
> Well, I could just blackhole the message, of course.
The best implementation is to defer recipients in the ACL that d
Hi,
> There's a better way to do it without collateral spam described in a
> guide somewhere, but what you have is working for you so .. yeah.
Well, I could just blackhole the message, of course.
> Anyway, what's happening ..
>
[...]
> Assuming I'm correct (ha!), if an email comes in and is spa
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
> So, still believing my configuration isn't all that weird ;-) my
> question remains: how can $spam_score_int be set during sender
> verification from the rcpt ACL?
Ok, now I get it.
There's a better way to do it without collateral spam described in a
guide somewhere, b
Hi Ted,
>> I could use some clarification on the following issue. In my RCPT ACL, I
>> have:
>>
>> denymessage = Sender verification failed
>> !verify = sender
>>
>> My first router is this:
>>
>> bounce_spam:
>> driver = redirect
>> dom
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I could use some clarification on the following issue. In my RCPT ACL, I
> have:
>
> denymessage = Sender verification failed
> !verify = sender
>
> My first router is this:
>
> bounce_spam:
> driver = redi
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Quoting W B Hacker:
Steal threads *how* ?? I started a new one.
No, you replied to a message in an existing thread, otherwise there
would have been no References and In-Reply-To header.
Still not sure where the negative spam score is coming from BTW
low bayes sco
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Quoting W B Hacker:
Steal threads *how* ?? I started a new one.
No, you replied to a message in an existing thread, otherwise there
would have been no References and In-Reply-To header.
Ah so - not sure how I missed that - thanks.
Still not sure where the negati
Quoting W B Hacker:
> Steal threads *how* ?? I started a new one.
No, you replied to a message in an existing thread, otherwise there
would have been no References and In-Reply-To header.
> Still not sure where the negative spam score is coming from BTW
low bayes score, whitelisting, whatever
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Quoting W B Hacker:
Can anyone confirm that spam_score_int is (and is intended to be) an
*unsigned* integer?
Of course not, many scores are negative, like your mail:
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
Oh, and please don't steal threads (last point of MailingListEtiquette).
Quoting W B Hacker:
> Can anyone confirm that spam_score_int is (and is intended to be) an
> *unsigned* integer?
Of course not, many scores are negative, like your mail:
> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
Oh, and please don't steal threads (last point of MailingListEtiquette).
--
## List details at
24 matches
Mail list logo
