On 08/12/2014 05:11 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
So... What do you do, when user A gets extremely mad to see
$legitimatenewsletter in their Inbox, and user B gets extremely mad to
see $legitimatenewsletter in their Spam folder?
Tell user A to unsubscribe? And don't do anything to increase the
ch
Both of those are recent, I believe and both have reasons to blacklist.
Reporting here is fine. Joe will look at moving them to our marketing list but
in the end you might have to consider a custom score because we consider places
with convicted spammers as suitable for listing even if there i
We're seeing FPs on legitimate messages caused by KAM_BODY_URIBL_PCCC.
It is firing on URLs from MSPs that (altho they may have some questionable
clients) have legimate customers. EG: mandrillapp-dot-com and
streamsend-dot-com
I'm a bit suprised that this rule would have a one-shot-kill score
of
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 11:42 -0400, Karl Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for the rule Karsten. I've already searched the archive to find
> this kind of rule and found few topic but I haven't been able to make
> it works yet. I will try this one and see how it goes.
Searching is much easier, if you know som
On 2014-08-12 15:11, Kris Deugau wrote:
So... What do you do, when user A gets extremely mad to see
$legitimatenewsletter in their Inbox, and user B gets extremely mad to
see $legitimatenewsletter in their Spam folder? If you only have a
global policy with no way to adjust on a per-user basis,
Alex wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> But you still have to consider point 1. If a user starts complaining
>> that he's getting spam from Amazon, I'm not going to mess with SA, I'm
>> going to tell him to click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the
>> email. (Assuming that it actually is from
>Use sa_tag_level_deflt = -100;
>All your emails will have the SpamAssassin headers.
Changed and Amavis has been restarted. I’ll check the headers on the next piece
of spam to come through. Thanks for the great help!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Greg Ledford
wrote:
>>Take a look at the "sa_tag_level_deflt" in your amavisd configuration
> file.
>
> $sa_tag_level_deflt = 5.5;
>
> $sa_tag2_level_deflt= 6.0;
>
> $sa_spam_subject_tag= '***POSSIBLE SPAM***';
>
> $sa_kill_level_deflt= 7.0;
>
Hi,
>> I disagree with that. In my opinion, only two criteria are needed
>> to define spam:
>>
>> 1) An objective criterion: Was the message unsolicited?
>
> Unfortunately, that can be difficult to determine. People frequently put
themselves on mailing lists as a consequence of creating a free a
>Take a look at the "sa_tag_level_deflt" in your amavisd configuration file.
$sa_tag_level_deflt = 5.5;
$sa_tag2_level_deflt= 6.0;
$sa_spam_subject_tag= '***POSSIBLE SPAM***';
$sa_kill_level_deflt= 7.0;
I did. I bumped the levels a bit because they were catching some legitimate
e
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
They may take a couple of different forms depending on how SA is hooked into
your mail infrastructure.
Basic SA headers start with "X-Spam", like X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Report.
If you're using Amavis, then there would be some Amavis headers. (Note
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Greg Ledford
wrote:
>
> It should just be called by Amavis directly. Sometimes it scans and
> sometimes it doesn't. I just found another obvious piece of email that SA
> and Amavis scanned and missed. I tried to attach the headers but they are
> so blatant that th
>They may take a couple of different forms depending on how SA is hooked into
>your mail infrastructure.
>Basic SA headers start with "X-Spam", like X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Report.
>If you're using Amavis, then there would be some Amavis headers. (Note that
>the mention of Amavis in the Receiv
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of
very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I
know I missed something somewhere. Thanks.
Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by S
>> Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of
>> very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I
>> know I missed something somewhere. Thanks.
>Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by SA.
>Do messages that SA *does* p
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote:
Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of
very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I
know I missed something somewhere. Thanks.
Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by S
Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of very
obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I know I missed
something somewhere. Thanks.
Received: from es300.phhwtechnology.com (10.0.1.3) by mail.phhwtechnology.com
(10.0.1.5) with Microsoft SMTP Se
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 15:48 -0400, Karl Johnson wrote:
> > Is there any rule to score an email with only 1 URL and very few text?
> > It could trigger only text formatted email because they usually aren't
> > in HTML.
>
> Identify very
On 8/12/2014 10:42 AM, matth wrote:
Oh, right, thanks. It is amavis. I did not realise it was triggering SA.
Thanks for the pointer.
Doing spam scanning with Amavis can be useful. It gives you the ability
to reject high-scoring spam, but you lose some of the per-user
customizations.
If you
Oh, right, thanks. It is amavis. I did not realise it was triggering SA.
Thanks for the pointer.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Spam-score-in-headers-does-not-match-the-Content-analysis-report-tp110896p110906.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Thanks for all the answers. I am afraid I was being naive.
> I was explicitly thinking of a scenario like this: filter as
> much as possible 'unsolicited email' sent by some (possibly)
> 'infected' account.
>
> I thought that t
On 8/12/2014 10:05 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*S
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:02:37 -0400
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 8/12/2014 9:48 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > 1) An objective criterion: Was the message unsolicited?
> Unfortunately, that can be difficult to determine.
Yes, definitely. But in principle, a message is either solicited or
not, regardl
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers the score ap
On 12.08.2014 08:43 Matus UHLAR wrote:
That means, much of rules that push over limit will not hit.
You still should not push required_score down, I remember outgoing mail
being blocked by inherited servers for hitting 7.0...
On 12.08.14 12:08, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
I was thinking about using
On 8/12/2014 9:48 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:41:07 -0400
Alex wrote:
I define "legitimate" as having been sent through a reputable
company's mail system. Chances are, Computer Associates aren't
spamming people.
I disagree with that. In my opinion, only two criteria are
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:41:07 -0400
Alex wrote:
> I define "legitimate" as having been sent through a reputable
> company's mail system. Chances are, Computer Associates aren't
> spamming people.
I disagree with that. In my opinion, only two criteria are needed
to define spam:
1) An objective c
Hi,
> > We periodically have users that complain about receiving email they
believe
> > to be spam, but it looks to be legitimate.
>
> What's your definition of "legitimate" :) ?
>
> My definition of spam is email which is:
>
> - unsolicited (ie: the user didn't sign up for some newsletter or mai
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Hello All,
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers
Hello All,
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers the score appears as 0.001, message i
Hi all.
Thanks for all the answers. I am afraid I was being naive.
I was explicitly thinking of a scenario like this: filter as
much as possible 'unsolicited email' sent by some (possibly)
'infected' account.
I thought that turning off the bayesian classifier (and the
RBL checks) would still let
31 matches
Mail list logo
