Am 2024-05-13 04:33, schrieb jdow:
Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS?
{^_^}
The mail/report is authentic. They already corrected this "error" or
changed the sending server. In today's report FORGED_SPF_HELO is 0.001
and the score is below 5 :)
On 20240512 06:56:5
Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS?
{^_^}
On 20240512 06:56:59, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status
Thomas Barth skrev den 2024-05-12 15:56:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.938
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.938 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
tests=[A
On 12.05.24 06:39, Greg Troxel wrote:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
as it was already said, it's not Debian, it's default score in amavis.
Even the original header is in the amavis format:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2 requ
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
probably they should not be doing that. as a packager, I fix bugs
(and file upstream bug reports), but it's usually linuxy
nonportability things that are clearly bugs (test ==, hardcoded lists
of accepted
Am 2024-05-12 01:08, schrieb jdow:
Methinks this is a perfect example of "one man's spam is another man's
ham." Or in my case, "A woman's spam is often a man's ham."
I like spam when it's well designed. That's why I no longer reject it on
my newly set up mail server. I just want them all to be
On 20240511 14:56:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thomas Barth writes:
Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain
that they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments
of scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obvi
Am 2024-05-11 23:49, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
The value 6.31 does not even appear in the spamassassin source
package.
Sorry, the values are overwritten via the Amavis defaults.
cat /etc/debian_version
10.13
egrep -nri "sa_tag_level_deflt|sa_kill_level_deflt" /etc
/etc/amavis/conf.d/20-debian_d
Thomas Barth writes:
> Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
>> I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain
>> that they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments
>> of scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obviously)
>> adjusting that threshold
On 2024-05-11 20:26:59 +0200, Thomas Barth wrote:
> Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
[...]
> > > found in
> > >
> > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
> > > tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
> > > DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PAS
Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain that
they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments of
scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obviously) adjusting
that threshold daily based on current scores.
On 2024-05-11 at 14:26:59 UTC-0400 (Sat, 11 May 2024 20:26:59 +0200)
Thomas Barth
is rumored to have said:
Hello
Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CH
Hello
Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK +
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1)
score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1
found in
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK +
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1)
score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1
found in
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VA
Hi guys,
thank you all for your advice!
Am 2024-05-10 22:39, schrieb Bowie Bailey:
The rules with the low scores are not intended to contribute to the
spam score for the email. They only have a defined score at all
because if the score is 0, SA will not run the rule.
It works like this:
Ru
On 5/10/2024 2:57 AM, Thomas Barth wrote:
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
On 2024-05-10 at 14:15:56 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 14:15:56 -0400)
Bill Cole
is rumored to have said:
> On 2024-05-09 at 18:19:14 UTC-0400 (Thu, 9 May 2024 15:19:14 -0700)
> jdow
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote:
>>> Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wi
On 2024-05-10 at 11:00:45 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT))
John Hardin
is rumored to have said:
> Note that poorly-performing rules may get a score that looks informational,
> but that may change over time based on the corpora.
IOW: rules that in themselves are not good enough p
On 2024-05-09 at 18:19:14 UTC-0400 (Thu, 9 May 2024 15:19:14 -0700)
jdow
is rumored to have said:
> 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 conjuncti
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Thomas Barth wrote:
So now I repeat my question: is it possible to increase the minimum
value to 0.1 by default?
Not really.
The score for a rule is either a fixed value assigned by the rule
developer or a dynamic value calculated by masscheck nightly. There isn't
a "ma
On 20240509 23:57:12, Thomas Barth wrote:
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
On 09.05.24 20:41, Thomas Barth wrote:
I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless
value of 0.001 is assigned.
Those rules may be tested in the present.
They also may be informative, e.g. DMARC_MISSING or SPF_PASS
rules with score 0 are not used so using 0 is not possi
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 and the
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
