Hi, all. I received a mail from a qq.com user that went over the spam
threshold. From the rules that triggered, it looks like the dynamic rDNS
rules triggered on the qq.com sending server, which contributed around
4.2 points to this message (which was not spam). Relevant headers:
X-Spam-Checker-Ve
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 08:38:24AM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> It was a typo, sorry. I have a cron job that uses --spam against the spam
> folder, and --ham against the ham folder. I just copied and pasted poorly.
> This is the actual script for my account:
>
> [thomas.cameron@mail-east ~]$ cat
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 04:17:22PM -0500, Thomas Cameron via users wrote:
> On 8/2/23 15:52, David B Funk wrote:
>
>
>
> I have the users move spam to an imap folder, and then run (via the user's
> cron job):
>
> sa-learn --mbox --spam /home/[username]/mail/spam
>
> If something is flagged as sp
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 02:12:01PM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 5/26/22 8:32 AM, Ian Evans wrote:
> > Is it safe to assume that a $5/mth 1gig memory account will laugh at the
> > resources needed to run a SpamAssassin/Postfix/Roundcube/Dovecot/Nginx
> > stack and not ever break a sweat?
>
> Sad
>On 11.11.17 20:06, Sean Greenslade wrote:
>>SPF checks the final server that transmits the mail. If you are using
>a relay server, that server will need to be in the SPF records.
>
>no. Only outgoing mail servers really need to be in SPF records.
Sorry, I misread the original m
On November 11, 2017 5:31:08 PM PST, Stephan Herker wrote:
>I'm running spam assassin default configuration which checks spf
>records. In my case I received an email and it checked if the last
>relay was a valid sender for SPF. The last relay was a server I have
>in
>the cloud, so it failed S
On March 31, 2017 2:36:41 PM PDT, David Niklas wrote:
>Hello,
>I accidentally learned a single message as ham from the menu of my MUA
>claws-mail.
>I immediately re-learned it as spam, but I want to know if there is
>anything else I might want to do to reverse the ham-ing process.
Nope, that's al
On November 7, 2016 9:26:29 AM PST, Eric Abrahamsen
wrote:
>What a lot of people (including myself) do is have two IMAP folders
>learn/spam and learn/ham. When a message is incorrectly classified you
>put it in the right folder, then run sa-learn on a cron job, looking in
>the appropriate folder,
On November 3, 2016 11:41:07 AM PDT, Birta Levente
wrote:
>I do not use spamassissin daemon. It's called by amavisd 2.10
>
You're probably better off asking on an amavis list in that case. I have no
experience with amavis.
However, given that it seems to be a lock contention issue, you might s
On October 13, 2016 5:39:50 AM PDT, Levente Birta wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have postfix with amavisd as content_filter and spamassassin 3.4.2
>When I enable the TxRep plugin the mail stay very long in the SA check:
>
>
>Oct 13 15:28:40 wsrv amavis[24727]: (24727-01) SA dbg: locker: mode is
>384
>Oct 13 15:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:57:37PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> I think the rule still has a use, perhaps in a meta or something.
I believe (though don't quote me on this) that a zero-weight rule will
still be checked if it's used as part of a metarule.
--Sean
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 04:51:20PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Sean Greenslade
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> >> > If you want to see what that rule's code looks like, here's a link:
> >
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 04:46:28PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have another rule with a questionable score that's hitting too much ham.
>
> From: "Customer Support"
> dbg: rules: ran header rule __FROM_WORDY ==> got hit: "Customer.Support@"
>
> http://pastebin.com/3qw6jLZp
>
> This rule
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> > If you want to see what that rule's code looks like, here's a link:
> >
> > https://fossies.org/dox/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1/classMail_1_1SpamAssassin_1_1Plugin_1_1HTTPSMismatch.html
> >
> > It's possible there is a bug in that rule. If you s
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:39:20PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> I think it must be something more than that. I've included the HTML
> component of an FP I received, and I don't see any occurrences of an
> https link where the text component is just http, or even vice-versa.
>
> http://pastebin.com/BNM9sLR
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> Hi, I'm seeing quite a few FPs with HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and its score
> of 2.0. Isn't that kind of high for a rule that doesn't even have a
> description?
>
> Can someone explain what the rule does, and consider whether its score
> should be
On September 24, 2016 6:12:10 AM EDT, Thomas Barth wrote:
>Instead of URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 I see URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL=1.948,
>URIBL_BLACK=1.7
>
>It s still not ok, is it?
That means it is working as intended, and your message has triggered hits on
two separate blacklists.
--Sean
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:03:00PM +0100, RW wrote:
> I've been wondering whether recursive is actually the correct term.
>
> As I understand it there are two types of DNS lookup:
>
> 1. Iterative - where results are found by working down through
> multiple servers from the root servers.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 05:23:46PM +0200, Thomas Barth wrote:
> I cant do that because I dont have spam mails. I dont make store&forward. I
> didnt thought that I need the spam uncompressed in a folder for
> autolearning, I thought it works when sa is analyzing the mail. My
> mailsystem checks mail
19 matches
Mail list logo
