Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking a look at that and offering my opinions:
Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it. Apart from inline
images though, the other points either don't apply to our emails, or
don't appear to be contributing to the SpamAssassin score.
> In all hon
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why not find which rules are triggered by your message
I already did - see my original post at the start of this thread.
> Can't be too hard, spammers do it all the time.
That's my point - why should I have to behave like a spammer in order
to avoid get
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...sign up with a service like Habeas or Bonded Sender and put their
> headers in your messages?
I suppose we could do. Does anyone know how much that costs?
It still seems wrong to me though that SpamAssassin is penalising mail
that doesn't look like
Sietse van Zanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have your trusted_networks, internal_networks and all_trusted set
> up correctly?
>
> With these three options you should be able to exclude messages sent
> from your IP address.
Yes, the problem is not that *our* SpamAssassin installation is
f
I work at a company with an automated on-line system. This system
sends emails to people. Spam Assassin appears to be triggering very
strongly, and incorrectly, on our messages.
FWIW, no we are not spammers, in fact the emails I'm talking about
aren't even a mailing list. They're emails generated
Jon Armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I solved the problem by simply making my filter not bother passing the
> > message to spamc at all if it was over 200k.
>
> Yes, as I understand sa-exim, messages over 250K (the default in my case)
> should not be passed to SA. That's why I'm wondering w
Sietse van Zanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have found the related Exim message...
> >
> > 2006-12-19 11:47:02 1GwdM9-0006Pd-35 local_scan() function timed out -
> > message temporarily rejected (size 320896)
>
> > ... so maybe I've posted this to the wrong list. Sorry.
>
>Unfortuna
