At 04:03 PM 8/7/03 -0400, Scott Blomquist wrote:
Hi folks,
I just received the attached maessage, it tripped SA at 5.6 but the only
thing that got hit was the BL rules. How did this get such a low score?
version=2.53
First, a side-note.. are you aware of the dreaded bug 1589, that allows
Hi folks,
I just received the attached maessage, it tripped SA at 5.6 but the only
thing that got hit was the BL rules. How did this get such a low score?
curious,
Scott
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.6 required=5.0
tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_NJABL
Perhaps you should read closer.. The first one does not match NO_REAL_NAME.
Thus the difference between the two runs is:
3.8 + BAYES_60 + NO_REAL_NAME = 6.0
3.8 + 1.2 +1.0 = 6.0
At 11:07 AM 3/18/2003 +, Darren Coleman wrote:
Hi,
I received two identical emails to two different email addres
Hi,
I received two identical emails to two different email addresses in the
space of a few minutes that are both covered by a single instance of
SpamAssassin, and one of them was deemed to be spam, and the other not.
This in it of itself wouldn't be a massive issue were it not for the fact
that th
