: "Alan Leghart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Header problem, intermittent, SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3
> It would be nearly impossible for every message to take the same path,
> unless you close
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Header problem, intermittent, SpamAssassin 2.60 rc3
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:31:34AM +0100, Yoav Aner wrote:
sure email is not scanned twice, and even if it was - then it would be
the case for all messages rather than just few.
that would be true if you only get mail goin
n
leave the highest of the two. This way, even if an email gets scanned twice
(or three times etc) - the score would still indicate the score of the
original message, which is normally higher.
Is there anybody else experiencing the same problem ?
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [SAtalk
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:31:34AM +0100, Yoav Aner wrote:
> sure email is not scanned twice, and even if it was - then it would be the
> case for all messages rather than just few.
that would be true if you only get mail going through the same path
all the time. it's likely not you scanning twic
I'm having the same problem with SA-2.55. I've tried using both spamc and
spamassassin piped from procmail to filter the mail and I'm having just a
few of the messages scored differently on the header and body. I'm quite
sure email is not scanned twice, and even if it was - then it would be the
cas
Thanks to Theo Van Dinter for his polite patience following my 'bug' report.
It was a problem, but related to a known bug in 2.60rc3, that the PREFIX of
installation of the local config files is not being set to the usual
/etc/mail/spamassassin, but rather /mail/spamassassin.Thus my local.cf w
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 10:30:16AM -0700, Jerry Glomph Black wrote:
> That's fine, but why is the score number not the same? I've been using procmail
> to read the X-Spam-Status numerical value, and thus decide where to deliver a
> given message. Is this header now irrelevant?
because as I said,
That's fine, but why is the score number not the same? I've been using procmail
to read the X-Spam-Status numerical value, and thus decide where to deliver a
given message. Is this header now irrelevant?
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 10:06:51AM -0700, Jer
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 10:06:51AM -0700, Jerry Glomph Black wrote:
> I've gotten a few spams which were scored appropriately, such as:
> the example below, which got 12.7 spampoints.
>
> BUT: the X-Spam-Status header indicates a score of 0.7 points! Why is this
> very partial sum being used for
I've gotten a few spams which were scored appropriately, such as:
the example below, which got 12.7 spampoints.
BUT: the X-Spam-Status header indicates a score of 0.7 points! Why is this
very partial sum being used for this header?
This problem happens for about 1% of the spams I get. Have use
10 matches
Mail list logo
