Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat):
Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They
can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help
determine ham or spam.
On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or
spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit an
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can
be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine
ham or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign
is not present. A small score indicat
On 09/05/2024 22:47, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory th
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or
spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign is not
present. A small score indicates that the rule did hit, so the sign it is
Hello,
I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless
value of 0.001 is assigned. The total score could be much higher. Do I
have to define all the checks myself with a desired value?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
tests=[DMARC_MISSING=0
On 2024-05-08 at 19:18:28 UTC-0400 (Wed, 8 May 2024 19:18:28 -0400)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
Hi, I'm using the latest version of SA from trunk (although I don't
think
that matters) and trying to make adjustments to rules on a particular
false-positive email that was quarantined by amavis
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign of
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign of
spam, you can make your SpamAssassin always trust SPF failures
absolutely. I would not recommend that. Some pe
On 2024-05-08 at 15:53:47 UTC-0400 (Wed, 08 May 2024 16:53:47 -0300)
kurt.va1der.ca via users
is rumored to have said:
I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was
clearly a well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as
follows:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 r
10 matches
Mail list logo
