Re: X-Spam-Status: No, but still marked with [SPAM]

Hello Cathryn, Friday, September 21, 2012, 6:21:05 PM, you wrote: CM> I'm getting these messages, some of them real emails, that get marked CM> with [SPAM] CM> even though X-Spam-Status: comes up as No. I updated to the latest build on CM> Fedora though I think this has been going on awhile.

Re: X-Spam-Status: No, but still marked with [SPAM]

This is pretty common - enough that I'd appreciate it if you could provide more information on the cause of your problem, and how you fix it, once you do. Yesterday in IRC: 09:40PM < ke6i> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=2.0 tests=FROM_MISSP_REPLYTO, FROM_MISSP_URI,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP a

Re: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.4 - Still delivered.

Joseph Brennan wrote: > > The reason the SMTP standard requires this is ensure that a delivery > status > notice does not generate another delivery status notice. > Thanks Joseph. You're right, seems a bit daft. Nevermind, at least I know it's not broken now! Will continue to score as usual

Re: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.4 - Still delivered.

snowweb wrote: It seems that if the sender is <> Exim always delivers it to the inbox, regardless of the how it was classified. Apparently this is because mailservers sending notification of undeliverable mail, identify themselves in this way (for some reason which appears a bit daft to me) T

Re: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.4 - Still delivered.

Thanks for your responses. Sorry, forgot temporarily, that SA only classifies spam and other mechanism's control what is done to it after that. Therefore the issue lies elsewhere as you rightly say. It seems that if the sender is <> Exim always delivers it to the inbox, regardless of the how it

Re: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.4 - Still delivered.

On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 23:26 -0700, snowweb wrote: > I'm getting many spams in the last few days, with spam scores far above my > 4.0 threshold, which are still being delivered. Wondering if it's to do with > the fact that they all seem to have no sender. Uhm, wait -- what else did you expect!? So

Re: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.4 - Still delivered.

On 10.05.11 23:26, snowweb wrote: > I'm getting many spams in the last few days, with spam scores far above my > 4.0 threshold, which are still being delivered. delivered? SA doesn't care about delivery, only about detecting spam. The delivery is up to your MTA, e.g. spamass-milter > X-Spam-Check

Re: X-Spam-Status does not appear in mail header

Hi Marianne, At 10:33 26-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote: I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the X-Spam-Level should appear in each message, regardless of it's spam or not. But the only header I see is X-Spam-C

Re: X-Spam-Status does not appear in mail header

Hi sm, The startup parameters may be different. Verify what "spamass_milter_flags" settings used in rc.conf to start the milter. I'm in doubt we mean the same thing. I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the

Re: X-Spam-Status does not appear in mail header

Hi Marianne, At 12:34 25-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote: the milter I'm using is spamass-milter-0.3.1 from pkgsrc, too. This milter can use the message body returned by spamd, including the rewritten headers. I used it under Debian, and it did not need any further configuration. The star

Re: X-Spam-Status does not appear in mail header

Hi, many thanks for your answer. Find out which milter is being used and whether it can be configured to add the headers you need. the milter I'm using is spamass-milter-0.3.1 from pkgsrc, too. I used it under Debian, and it did not need any further configuration. Regards, Marianne -- "Die

Re: X-Spam-Status does not appear in mail header

At 10:14 25-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote: I have a strange problem on my NetBSD-current box: I installed spamassassin from pkgsrc (V 3.2.3) and configured it in sendmail (INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`spamassassin'...). [snip] But newly arrived mail gets never marked as spam; spamassassin[1] checks i

Re: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=?

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 02:45:54PM +1000, ip guy wrote: > Anyone know why I'd keep seeing this in the mail herders of email scanner > for spam > > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=? Whatever you have calling SA is adding markup. SA won't ever put in question marks. My guess is that it's

Re: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=?

Maybe i wasn't clear. i guess it was the way i asked. Anyone know why I'd keep seeing this in the mail herders of email scanner for spam X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=? My setup currently uses spamc v2.40 on hostA to forward to spamd v3.1.8 on hostB My local.cf on hostB is setup

Re: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=?

ip guy wrote: > Hi all > > Anyone know why see "X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=?" in the > email header after delivery and spam scanning ? > > My local.cf file looks like this > > required_score 8.0 > report_safe 1 > rewrite_header Subject *SPAM* Do you use spamc?

Re: X-Spam-Status different info

Gabriel Millerd wrote: On 5/11/07, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the "\d+_scores.cf" rules also can be a pain with sa-update which is a > big part of the juggling. Care to elaborate? If you have a minimal configuration the mass-check scores will likely bomb on your lint ch

Re: X-Spam-Status different info

On 5/11/07, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the "\d+_scores.cf" rules also can be a pain with sa-update which is a > big part of the juggling. Care to elaborate? If you have a minimal configuration the mass-check scores will likely bomb on your lint check. The names of the tw

Re: X-Spam-Status different info

Gabriel Millerd wrote: In v3.2 it seems the reading of the /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.(pre|cf) files is less forgiving. You used to be able to have the all in one .cf file before v3.2. Likely your header rules are in a .cf file and the sa-update is just reading the .pre file. You could never put

Re: X-Spam-Status different info

In v3.2 it seems the reading of the /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.(pre|cf) files is less forgiving. You used to be able to have the all in one .cf file before v3.2. Likely your header rules are in a .cf file and the sa-update is just reading the .pre file. I had to juggle the /etc/mail/spamassassin fi

Re: X-Spam Status Removed

Zack Odell wrote: Greetings I have had much success using SA with amavis-new in blocking spam and any other nasty email. So the way my network looks is like this: Server with SA/amavis-new & postfix receives all mail runs through any and all tests and is then relayed to an internal mail server

Re: X-Spam Status Removed

On Wednesday 26 July 2006 20:57, Zack Odell wrote: > then relayed to an internal mail server where my users > retrieve their mail. Why? What's with that server? Isn't that where your problem lies? -- _ John Andersen pgpeemE6fiV7b.pgp Description: PGP signa

Re: X-Spam-Status settings

Yes, That is what I was looking for. Thanks Shane - Original Message - From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:44 PM Subject: RE: X-Spam-Status settings Steven Manross wrote: _TESTSSCORES(,)_ From: Shane Mullin

RE: X-Spam-Status settings

_TESTSSCORES(,)_ From: Shane Mullins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:22 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: X-Spam-Status settings I have forgotten the setting that tell

Re: X-Spam-Status settings

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Shane Mullins wrote: hI, > I have forgotten the setting that tells SA to include the point value > for each of the hits the incoming message was flagged on. I searched > the web and looked in my book, but can't seem to find it. Could someone > please jog my memory? "add_he

RE: X-Spam-Status settings

Steven Manross wrote: > _TESTSSCORES(,)_ > > From: Shane Mullins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I have forgotten the setting that tells SA to include the point > > value for each of the hits the incoming message was flagged on. I > > searched the web and looked in my book, but can't seem to fin

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sunday 22 January 2006 14:08, Jerry Gaiser wrote: On Saturday 21 January 2006 09:03 pm, Gene Heskett wrote: One facility that kmail seems to be missing, is the ability to send such crap to /dev/null, all I get are error messages when thats attempted.

Re: X-Spam Status

On Sunday 22 January 2006 14:08, Jerry Gaiser wrote: >On Saturday 21 January 2006 09:03 pm, Gene Heskett wrote: >> One facility that kmail seems to be missing, is the ability to send >> such crap to /dev/null, all I get are error messages when thats >> attempted. > >Not really /dev/null but Trash,

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Craig McLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gene Heskett wrote: No I'm not, Joanne! Fetchmail is run from rc.local and delivers the mail from vz and gmail to /var/spool/mail/gene on a 10 minute repeating loop. Kmail, then, completely asynchronously

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sunday 22 January 2006 04:15, jdow wrote: From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] One facility that kmail seems to be missing, is the ability to send such crap to /dev/null, all I get are error messages when thats attempted. I don't remembe

Re: X-Spam Status

On Saturday 21 January 2006 09:03 pm, Gene Heskett wrote: > One facility that kmail seems to be missing, is the ability to send such > crap to /dev/null, all I get are error messages when thats attempted. Not really /dev/null but Trash, but I do this to a couple of folks I *never* want to see aga

Re: X-Spam Status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gene Heskett wrote: > > No I'm not, Joanne! Fetchmail is run from rc.local and delivers the > mail from vz and gmail to /var/spool/mail/gene on a 10 minute repeating > loop. > Kmail, then, completely asynchronously but on the same basic 10 > minut

Re: X-Spam Status

On Sunday 22 January 2006 04:15, jdow wrote: >From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] One facility that kmail seems to be missing, is the ability to send such crap to /dev/null, all I get are error messages when thats attempted. >>> >>>I don't remember if you use procmail or n

Re: X-Spam Status

Spam Ass wrote: > The only time I have run into an email not being tagged is when the > email was over a certain size. I believe the default max size is > 256kb. This can be changed on a per user or global basis though. Other times this will happen is when you're using spamd/spamc and a timeout

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sunday 22 January 2006 00:31, jdow wrote: From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Saturday 21 January 2006 22:06, Theo Van Dinter wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 09:44:54PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: Ok, I just set that up in kmail, triggered b

Re: X-Spam Status

On Sunday 22 January 2006 00:31, jdow wrote: >From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> On Saturday 21 January 2006 22:06, Theo Van Dinter wrote: >>>On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 09:44:54PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: Ok, I just set that up in kmail, triggered by 'does not contain' "X-Spam-

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Saturday 21 January 2006 22:06, Theo Van Dinter wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 09:44:54PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: Ok, I just set that up in kmail, triggered by 'does not contain' "X-Spam-Status" It's worth noting that you're likely to cause a m

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 09:44:54PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: Ok, I just set that up in kmail, triggered by 'does not contain' "X-Spam-Status" It's worth noting that you're likely to cause a mail loop on your machine. If the header doesn't exist aft

Re: X-Spam Status

On Saturday 21 January 2006 22:06, Theo Van Dinter wrote: >On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 09:44:54PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: >> Ok, I just set that up in kmail, triggered by 'does not >> contain' "X-Spam-Status" > >It's worth noting that you're likely to cause a mail loop on your > machine. If the hea

Re: X-Spam Status

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 09:44:54PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > Ok, I just set that up in kmail, triggered by 'does not > contain' "X-Spam-Status" It's worth noting that you're likely to cause a mail loop on your machine. If the header doesn't exist after passing through SA the first time, the h

Re: X-Spam Status

How is SA being called? Some of the integration tools do not use SA headers at all, they install their own. Others will only install the SA headers if the mail is classified as spam, and leave the pristine message if for whatever reason it wasn't classified as spam (thus making it impossible to s

Re: X-Spam Status

On Saturday 21 January 2006 20:42, jdow wrote: >From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] >> An interesting thought just came to mind, Joanne. Could one check >> for the header added, and if not present, just repeat the scan by >> pipeing it thru spamc again? What you say would tend to show

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Saturday 21 January 2006 18:40, jdow wrote: From: "Spam Ass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 1/21/06, Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So does SA mark EVERY email with the: X-Spam-Status: Yes/No header? The only time I have run into an email not being tag

Re: X-Spam Status

On Saturday 21 January 2006 18:40, jdow wrote: >From: "Spam Ass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >On 1/21/06, Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So does SA mark EVERY email with the: >> X-Spam-Status: Yes/No header? > >The only time I have run into an email not being tagged is when the > email was over a

Re: X-Spam Status

From: "Spam Ass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 1/21/06, Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So does SA mark EVERY email with the: X-Spam-Status: Yes/No header? The only time I have run into an email not being tagged is when the email was over a certain size. I believe the default max size is 256kb.

Re: X-Spam Status

On 1/21/06, Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   So does SA mark EVERY email with the: X-Spam-Status: Yes/No  header?The only time I have run into an email not being tagged is when the email was over a certain size.  I believe the default max size is 256kb.  This can be changed on a per user or global

Re: X-Spam-Status/content analysis details inconsistencies.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 there's an upstream server *also* running SpamAssassin, and defanging the message in some way so that your SpamAssassin server doesn't get a chance to get the full hits. - --j. jeffrey.arnold writes: > Hi users, > > I have a weird problem here t

Re: X-Spam-Status/content analysis details inconsistencies.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Alan Premselaar wrote: :: This type of symptom seems to be common to mail being scanned twice (or :: more) by spamassasin. how do you have the call to spamd/spamc implemented? :: Hi Alan, I am running qmail-1.0.3, and run spamc piped through to qmail-queue by replacing t

Re: X-Spam-Status/content analysis details inconsistencies.

jeffrey.arnold wrote: Hi users, I have a weird problem here that i know i am not the only one to encounter, and have yet to see (in much searching) a solution for. I am running spamassassin for all mail via spamd/spamc, and filtering on the "X-Spam-Status: Yes" header. The majority of my spam is