Hello,
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:32:23 -0400, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> In my MTA (exim) under FreeBSD I have
>> spamd_address = 127.0.0.1 783
>
> Sorry I dropped from the thread.. I missed it when you replied without
> leaving in a "Matt Kettler wrote.." type text in the reply
>
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:18:46 -0700, "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>> How can I check it then?
>>>
>> 1.How does mail get to spamd?
>>
>
> In my MTA (exim) under FreeBSD I have
> spamd_address = 127.0.0.1 783
Sorry I dropped
Can you? I already commented some header_remove lines but their effect was
that emails which were considered not spam, their headers were not
modified. The below config file shows only uncommented lines.
http://szalbot.homedns.org/exim.txt
As I said, I'm not an exim guy. But just looking at t
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:37:18 -0700, "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>> 2.How does mail get from spamd to the users?
>>
>> When the check has been finished, mail is delivered by exim to an
>> appropriate user.
>
> Hum. I don't know exim, although others here do. It sounds
2.How does mail get from spamd to the users?
When the check has been finished, mail is delivered by exim to an
appropriate user.
Hum. I don't know exim, although others here do. It sounds to me like exim
must have been modifying the SA produced markup and passing that along. You
could
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:18:46 -0700, "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> How can I check it then?
>
> 1.How does mail get to spamd?
In my MTA (exim) under FreeBSD I have
spamd_address = 127.0.0.1 783
> 2.How does mail get from spamd to the users?
When the check has bee
How can I check it then?
1.How does mail get to spamd?
2.How does mail get from spamd to the users?
Loren
Hello,
> That example content will NOT happen from the configuration you quoted.
> In fact, that example CANNOT be made to happen in SA without
> considerable effort. Period.
>
> Something other than SpamAssassin is generating your headers.
How can I check it then?
# ps ax |grep spamd
70930 ?
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>> that's nothing like the defaults.
>>
>
> My (uncommented) settings are:
> report_safe 0
> trusted_networks 192.168/16
> lock_method flock
> required_score 5.0
> use_bayes 1
> bayes_auto_learn 1
> bayes_ignore_header X-Bogosity
> bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Flag
> baye
Hello,
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:38:13 -0400, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>>
>> I went for the report_safe 0 option but what I would really like to get
> is
>> also the spam YES/NO flag in it.
>>
>> I have X-Spam-Score: 22.7 (++)
>> X-Spam-Re
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>
> I went for the report_safe 0 option but what I would really like to get is
> also the spam YES/NO flag in it.
>
> I have X-Spam-Score: 22.7 (++)
> X-Spam-Report - rather lengthy description of why the email was classified
> as such but no X-Spam-Statu
Dear Matt and others,
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:53:19 -0400, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Using SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.1. I added report_header and
>> use_terse_report to local.cf but when restarting spamd, I got
> information
>> that sa cannot parse these options. Are these
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Using SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.1. I added report_header and
> use_terse_report to local.cf but when restarting spamd, I got information
> that sa cannot parse these options. Are these options obsolete or should
> they be placed elsewhere?
>
>
Actually,
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Using SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.1. I added report_header and
> use_terse_report to local.cf but when restarting spamd, I got information
> that sa cannot parse these options. Are these options obsolete or should
> they be placed elsewhere?
Obsolete, as of
14 matches
Mail list logo
