ugh the SA system. I haven't taken the time yet to look into it, it
seems to happen about 1/1000 of the time.
-Original Message-
From: mikea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Spam not
On Mon, Sep 22, 200
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:07:06PM -0400, Alicia Forsythe wrote:
> The following spam is making it through. When I test this same mail, it
> scores over 20 points. Why is it still getting through?
>
>
> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from 209.118.212.3
> ([200.167.37.247])
El Mié 16 Oct 2002 11:14, Jose Manuel Macias Luna escribió:
> I realized this morning that some spam is not being tagged by
> SA...
I know why... I'm sorry... spamc man page states:
" Note that the default size is 250k, so if spamc gets handed a
message bigger than this
Well, the particular bug is marked "WONTFIX" because it's not really a bug,
it's an intentional behavior.
Someone was making the argument that SA should only examine the from: line
for whitelists, and that's not practical.
In your case it sounds like you've checked to make sure that both the
From: Arie Slob
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:29 AM
> To: Riley; Justin Mason
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Spam not tagged, and USER_IN_WHITELIST?
>
> Well, I thought I had a similar problem. Got 2 emails in the last 24 hours
> listing
>
> US
"Riley" said:
> Could some explain this to me? Maybe I'm missing something obvious?
> I can't find any reference to this in my whitelists, but the Status
> is No.
Well, I thought I had a similar problem. Got 2 emails in the last 24 hours
listing
USER_IN_WHITELIST
I found out that:
I had our
"Riley" said:
> Could some explain this to me? Maybe I'm missing something obvious? I
> can't find any reference to this in my whitelists, but the Status is No.
we'd need full headers to be able to diagnose it. those mails are
incomplete... no Received hdrs or Return-Path.
--j.
---
