On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 02:50:11 +0200
Mark Martinec wrote:
> >> >> On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
> >> >>> Michael Williamson wrote:
> >> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam
> >> scores fo
>> On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
>>> Michael Williamson wrote:
It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam
scores for the same email.
In particular, I have noticed that points are omitted for
R
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:17:12 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> On 4/22/2015 11:19 PM, Thom Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:23:22 -0400
> > "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> >
> >> Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are
> >> started? Regards,
> >> KAM
> > No. spamd is
On 4/22/2015 11:19 PM, Thom Miller wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:23:22 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are
started? Regards,
KAM
No. spamd is started after the network is up and running.
According to
https://spamassassin.apache.org/
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:23:22 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are
> started? Regards,
> KAM
No. spamd is started after the network is up and running.
According to
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.h
Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are started?
Regards,
KAM
On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
>Michael Williamson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have another question.
>>
>> It appears to me that spamassassin can produc
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
Michael Williamson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have another question.
>
> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam scores
> for the same email.
> In particular, I have noticed that points are omitted for
> RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS (Spamhaus blacklist) somet
On 4/18/15, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Saturday 18 April 2015 at 17:16:40 (EU time), Michael Williamson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have another question.
>>
>> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam scores
>> for the same email.
>
> Do you mean *exactly* the same email - totally
On Saturday 18 April 2015 at 17:16:40 (EU time), Michael Williamson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have another question.
>
> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam scores
> for the same email.
Do you mean *exactly* the same email - totally identical headers and body,
with no change
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 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 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 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
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 11:34 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > In other words is there something like a gaussian distribution
> > graphic visualisation?
>
> That would be different on every server depending on what type of spam
> and ham you see and which rule sets you are running. I graphed mine ou
On 6/9/2014 11:34 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 6/9/2014 3:47 AM, Ben Stover wrote:
As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts
the value into the email header.
What is the maximum range of the score?
-10,,+10
or other?
There are no limits on the score. The high
On 6/9/2014 3:47 AM, Ben Stover wrote:
As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts the value
into the email header.
What is the maximum range of the score?
-10,,+10
or other?
There are no limits on the score. The higher the score, the more likely
the email is
On Monday 09 June 2014 at 09:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 09.06.14 09:47, Ben Stover wrote:
> >As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts the
> > value into the email header.
> >
> >What is the maximum range of the score?
> >
> >-10,,+10
>
> I don't think
On 09.06.14 09:47, Ben Stover wrote:
As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts the
value into the email header.
What is the maximum range of the score?
-10,,+10
I don't think it has limits. Maybe just limist for integer.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantom
aquero wrote:
Hi,
What is the maximum allowed spam score value for a legitimate mail? What
value should i set as the spam score limit?
On my own servers, I lean towards being a little extra conservative. I
don't tag subject lines until the score reaches 6. However, if the
score gets to
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> On 4.6.2010 18:53, aquero wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> What is the maximum allowed spam score value for a legitimate mail?
>> What
>> value should i set as the spam score limit?
>
> The default is 5 and that value works best for any installation, as the
> stock rules are
On 4.6.2010 18:53, aquero wrote:
>
> Hi,
> What is the maximum allowed spam score value for a legitimate mail? What
> value should i set as the spam score limit?
The default is 5 and that value works best for any installation, as the
stock rules are configured using that value.
You have it at
On 4-Mar-2010, at 15:04, Walter Breno wrote:
>
> Hi, i have some problems with false positives so i need that the e-mails
> with spamassassin score 2 or 3 has being marked as spam but delivered to the
> user,
Why would you mark emails with scores of 2 or 3 as spam?
You're doing it wrong.
--
I
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:04 -0300, Walter Breno wrote:
> Hi, i have some problems with false positives so i need that the
False Positive. A mail, that has been (positively) classified as spam,
but is not (false).
> e-mails with spamassassin score 2 or 3 has being marked as spam but
You are class
On 5.3.2010 0:04, Walter Breno wrote:
> Hi, i have some problems with false positives so i need that the e-mails
> with spamassassin score 2 or 3 has being marked as spam but delivered to
> the user, what is the parameter that can help me with this problem?
SpamAssassin does not do anything in ord
Mark Martinec wrote:
> The updated patch is now attached to
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3364
> (replaces my previous two).
>
> In addition to previous tests, it now also resets corrupted AWL
> record when it sees one.
>
>> I don't know if it's an option but i could
Mark Martinec schreef:
First, UML is a virtual machine infrastructure.
See http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/
Now you are talking!
See:
http://fixunix.com/openssl/518688-re-uml-devel-dev-random-problems-fp-regis
ters-corruption.html
Seems like it was fixed in February 2008:
UML - Fix
> > First, UML is a virtual machine infrastructure.
> > See http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/
>
> Now you are talking!
>
> See:
> http://fixunix.com/openssl/518688-re-uml-devel-dev-random-problems-fp-regis
>ters-corruption.html
Seems like it was fixed in February 2008:
UML - Fix FP regist
Benedict,
> > Please don't delete your AWL. I'll provide a patch which will reset a
> > bad entry when it encounters one, so your db will be a good testground.
>
> I already deleted it but i had a backup so the original is already
> restored.
The updated patch is now attached to
https://issues.
Benedict,
> spamd[1321]: plugin: eval failed:
> Sort subroutine didn't return a numeric value
> at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/AsyncLoop.pm line 278.
Again a NaN out of nowhere, this time in timing data.
> First, UML is a virtual machine infrastructure.
> See http://user-mode-linux.source
Mark Martinec wrote:
> Benedict,
>
>> This again suggests that something is broken with my AWL. I think i'd
>> better delete it.
>> As it seems now, the only thing strange left is the AWL & related NaN.
>>
>
> Please don't delete your AWL. I'll provide a patch which will reset a
> bad entry
Benedict,
> This again suggests that something is broken with my AWL. I think i'd
> better delete it.
> As it seems now, the only thing strange left is the AWL & related NaN.
Please don't delete your AWL. I'll provide a patch which will reset a
bad entry when it encounters one, so your db will b
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:19 +0200, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:04 +0200, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> >
> >> i have tested with another spam message that has a combined score of
> >> 22.5 and it's not flagged as spam.
> >> The full debug log
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:04 +0200, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
>
>> i have tested with another spam message that has a combined score of
>> 22.5 and it's not flagged as spam.
>> The full debug log is here:
>> http://www.heimdallit.be/download/spam_debug_1.txt
>>
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:00 +0200, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > This might be relevant WRT to bug 3364 [2], it definitely matches the
> > summary. Can you still reproduce these NaN scores, if you comment out
> > the above options?
> As for reproducing, see last part o
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:04 +0200, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> i have tested with another spam message that has a combined score of
> 22.5 and it's not flagged as spam.
> The full debug log is here:
> http://www.heimdallit.be/download/spam_debug_1.txt
Hmm, does that say that a bunch of major R
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> as i said, to my knowledge, i'm not using any custom headers and i
>> asked how i could know for sure as it's not clear to me how to check
>
> Ah, sorry, kind of forgot about that. Well, posting your cf files is one
> option. ;) Another one is to read the configurat
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:03 +0200, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann schreef:
> > Benedict, since I asked about custom headers before, it might be a good
> > idea to carefully check the config and answer my previous question.
> > Since you're not using custom rules, but change scores,
Mark Martinec schreef:
Benedict,
Thing is, what is causing the nan?
My guess is that a NaN somehow got into your AWL database.
I have reopened bug 3364, and attached a richer patch:
"Deal with NaN in AutoWhitelist and PerMsgStatus"
which includes my previous patch and also instrume
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
Some more interesting stuff from /var/log/syslog:
Oct 14 09:15:08 loki spamd[1274]: auto-whitelist: attempt to add a nan
to AWL entry ignored
177 Oct 14 09:15:08 loki spamd[1274]: !! rules: score 'nan' for rule
'AWL' in 'AWL: ' 'From: address is in the auto white-lis
Mark Martinec wrote:
> Guenther, Benedict,
>
>>> My guess is that a NaN somehow got into your AWL database.
>> Things are much more complicated, or rather weird, than that.
>>
>> According to Benedict's reports and pasted snippets, he got an NaN score
>> for at least 3 rules: FROM_ILLEGAL_CHARS, A
Karsten Bräckelmann schreef:
> Benedict, since I asked about custom headers before, it might be a good
> idea to carefully check the config and answer my previous question.
> Since you're not using custom rules, but change scores, you likely
> copied (read: inherited) that part from your previous c
Guenther, Benedict,
> > My guess is that a NaN somehow got into your AWL database.
>
> Things are much more complicated, or rather weird, than that.
>
> According to Benedict's reports and pasted snippets, he got an NaN score
> for at least 3 rules: FROM_ILLEGAL_CHARS, AWL, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE
Yo
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 17:39 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> > Thing is, what is causing the nan?
>
> My guess is that a NaN somehow got into your AWL database.
Things are much more complicated, or rather weird, than that.
According to Benedict's reports and pasted snippets, he got an NaN score
fo
Benedict,
> Thing is, what is causing the nan?
My guess is that a NaN somehow got into your AWL database.
I have reopened bug 3364, and attached a richer patch:
"Deal with NaN in AutoWhitelist and PerMsgStatus"
which includes my previous patch and also instruments
AutoWhitelist module to check
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
>
> I got a message that again scored a nan for MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE
> The mail is available here:
> http://paste-it.net/public/r3df8b2/
>
> Weird thing is that the lines i added to PerMsgStatus.pm weren't showing up.
>
> Regards,
> Benedict
My bad, i reinstalled
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks Mark and Guenther.
>
> I patched the score part as indicated in Mark's mail and when i run
> spamassassin in
> debug mode, i do see a message popping up with results to a NaN score:
> [6443] warn: rules: score 'nan' for rule 'AWL' in 'AWL: '
>
Guenther wrote:
>> Do you use customized headers? (Sorry, don't have the OP, but IIRC I
>> spotted some.) What are the results of the snippets in comment 4, and
>> what about comment 11?
>>
>
> A question is for Benedict I suppose.
>
>
>> Puzzling, how he gets NaN in the first place. Bened
Guenther wrote:
> Do you use customized headers? (Sorry, don't have the OP, but IIRC I
> spotted some.) What are the results of the snippets in comment 4, and
> what about comment 11?
A question is for Benedict I suppose.
> Puzzling, how he gets NaN in the first place. Benedict, did you lint
> y
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:45 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Benedict,
>
> > I found bug # 3364 in the buglist and according to this it seems like a
> > Debian issue. It doesn't seem to occur on other systems or at least it's
> > not reproducable.
Do you use customized headers? (Sorry, don't have th
Benedict,
> I found bug # 3364 in the buglist and according to this it seems like a
> Debian issue. It doesn't seem to occur on other systems or at least it's
> not reproducable.
>
> The uri bl black is scored as nan again.
> It's really annoying as this is what probably is causing the score not
>
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Benedict Verheyen wrote:
>
>
> I want to reply to my previous message with some more info but i'm not
> able to do so, my messages keep getting flagged as spam.
> Very annoying, first spamassassin doesn't work like it should here and i
> can't even ask for help now :)
>
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Benedict Verheyen wrote:
>
>
> I want to reply to my previous message with some more info but i'm not
> able to do so, my messages keep getting flagged as spam.
> Very annoying, first spamassassin doesn't work like it should here and i
> can't even ask for help now :)
>
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
I want to reply to my previous message with some more info but i'm not
able to do so, my messages keep getting flagged as spam.
Very annoying, first spamassassin doesn't work like it should here and i
can't even ask for help now :)
Who do i contact to solve the issue of m
Sg wrote:
> hi all,
>
> In my project I am going to send newsletters to our clients. Here I
> need to validate my newsletter(content) using perl. I need to check
> the spam score for only body content not header. I have tried with
> SA-3.2.4 it will check both header and body of the newsletter. I
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 at 19:15 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
hi!
i did get following score on an message:
FRELAY_DYN_RDNSN,SADB
the origin is a valid mail address with a text message as body.
google nor SA delivers any reasonable explanation for these 2 filters.
can anybody help me on th
On Thursday 01 March 2007, Raymond Schwartz wrote:
>I have been using Kintera to send emails with a template for the last
> few months. The template remains the same and only the text content
> changes.
>
>Our spam scores have been around 1.3.
>
>Last month, I started seeing this in our score repor
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Ingraham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I will add the "score SARE_ADULT2 BODY 10.0" line to local.cf
Steve,
I've just checked for you. It's
score SARE_ADULT2 10.0
Ignore my earlier suggestion about adding an underscore.
Jon
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:53:43AM -0600, Steve Ingraham wrote:
> > on this rule it would score higher. Can I change the score
> for that
> > rule? If so, do I just add a line in the local.cf file like so?
> >
> > SARE_ADULT2 BODY 8.0
>
> No. "perldoc Mail::SpamAs
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:53:43AM -0600, Steve Ingraham wrote:
> on this rule it would score higher. Can I change the score for that
> rule? If so, do I just add a line in the local.cf file like so?
>
> SARE_ADULT2 BODY 8.0
No. "perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf", look for "score".
> Secon
If so, do I just add a line in the local.cf
> file like so?
>
> SARE_ADULT2 BODY 8.0
>
> Second question, in local.cf I have a line that reads:
>
> BAYES_99 10.0
>
> I had assumed that line to mean that any email hitting on the
> BAYES_99 rule would receive a score of 10.0, but as you c
From: "Jim Knuth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Heute (17.09.2006/06:46 Uhr) schrieb Daryl C. W. O'Shea,
Jim Knuth wrote:
How can I find out, which is my trusted network?
By reading the documentation and comparing it with your network config? :)
Is this my Server IP address or 127.0.0.0 or wha
From: "Dhaval Patel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dhaval Patel wrote:
> I hope that I am asking for this kind of help in the right place.
>
> I always look into why any spam got into my Inbox and found the reasons for this
> message troubling. I use spam
Heute (17.09.2006/06:46 Uhr) schrieb Daryl C. W. O'Shea,
> Jim Knuth wrote:
>> How can I find out, which is my trusted network?
> By reading the documentation and comparing it with your network config? :)
>> Is this my Server IP address or 127.0.0.0 or what? ;)
> Any IP that appears in your r
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Dhaval Patel wrote:
> > I hope that I am asking for this kind of help in the right place.
> >
> > I always look into why any spam got into my Inbox and found the reasons for
> > this
> > message troubling. I use spamc in the maildrop rule but I p
Jim Knuth wrote:
How can I find out, which is my trusted network?
By reading the documentation and comparing it with your network config? :)
Is this my Server IP address or 127.0.0.0 or what? ;)
Any IP that appears in your received headers from your MX all the way to
the machine running
Heute (17.09.2006/06:20 Uhr) schrieb Daryl C. W. O'Shea,
> Dhaval Patel wrote:
>> I hope that I am asking for this kind of help in the right place.
>>
>> I always look into why any spam got into my Inbox and found the reasons for
>> this message
>> troubling. I use spamc in the maildrop rule but
Dhaval Patel wrote:
I hope that I am asking for this kind of help in the right place.
I always look into why any spam got into my Inbox and found the reasons for
this message
troubling. I use spamc in the maildrop rule but I put that message through
spamassassin
-t -D and get the same score so
On Monday 11 September 2006 21:30, Jason Bennett wrote:
> If Network Tests means RBL's and Pyzor, they are on. I don't have Razor
> or DCC - would that make a big difference here?
>
> Thanks
I think Razor would help you a lot in these cases.
Be sure to do proper configuration and adjust your
SA
If Network Tests means RBL's and Pyzor, they are on. I don't have Razor
or DCC - would that make a big difference here?
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:14 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject
Turn on network tests. See wiki.
On Monday 11 September 2006 18:37, Jason Bennett wrote:
> Hi all, this particular piece of spam seems to generate a low score. I
> am using most of the SARE rules including 70_sare_stocks.cf . I'm using
> SpamAssassin 3.1.5
>
>
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
Title: Message
We drop spam at
5.0 and optionally file 4.0-4.99 mail in the user's Junk E-mail if they have
that folder.
-Original Message-From: Vahric MUHTARYAN
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 8:25
AMTo: users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: FW: Spam
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
>
> I started spamassassin score from 6.5 , now Im watching the mail
> flow and I saw that if mails are really a mail they have a point
> bettween 0.1 - 1.x , and some of spams are getting score between 5.0
> - 5.9 and because of this I couldnt catch it . Actually I know
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 03:13:41PM -0500, Andy Jezierski wrote:
> The Doctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/27/2005 02:34:42 PM:
>
> > - Forwarded message from Angry and Concerned Customer -
> >
> > X-Scanned-By: milter-spamc/0.25.321 (localhost.nl2k.ab.ca [0.0.0.
> > 0]); Wed, 27 Jul 20
At 06:40 PM 10/22/2004 -0400, Asif Iqbal wrote:
@400041797c921b8ffdfc 2004-10-22 21:32:56 [13829] i: clean message
(1.6/5.0) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:7794 in 1.1 seconds, 1227 bytes.
@400041797c921b98ef0c 2004-10-22 21:32:56 [13829] i: result: . 1 -
BAYES_00,MSGID_DOLLARS,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51
75 matches
Mail list logo
