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
Greg Troxel wrote:
Alan writes:
It's sent to the bit bucket, not done in the MTA. In this case, each
account can set individual thresholds and has an individual set of
local rules, so that might be why. I'd prefer to 550 them as well,
although I suspect the majority of sources just don't care
Alan writes:
> It's sent to the bit bucket, not done in the MTA. In this case, each
> account can set individual thresholds and has an individual set of
> local rules, so that might be why. I'd prefer to 550 them as well,
> although I suspect the majority of sources just don't care. Lately the
>
On 2021-08-17 18:53, Greg Troxel wrote:
Alan <> writes:
I manage email for a couple of hundred domains, so a fair bit of stuff
that arrives to my inbox are spam complaints (they're supposed to open
tickets or use the support mailbox but... users). I flag anything over
5.0 as spam, but it stil
On 2021-08-17 18:03, David Bürgin wrote:
In your experience, what is a good ‘certain spam’ threshold? By that I
mean the score above which messages are virtually always spam, no false
positives.
basicly all above 5 is spam tagged with default spamassassin, it is so
as long as spamassassin does
Alan writes:
> I manage email for a couple of hundred domains, so a fair bit of stuff
> that arrives to my inbox are spam complaints (they're supposed to open
> tickets or use the support mailbox but... users). I flag anything over
> 5.0 as spam, but it still comes to my inbox. Anything over 8.0
I manage email for a couple of hundred domains, so a fair bit of stuff
that arrives to my inbox are spam complaints (they're supposed to open
tickets or use the support mailbox but... users). I flag anything over
5.0 as spam, but it still comes to my inbox. Anything over 8.0 goes to
the bit buc
David Bürgin writes:
[all the other replies sound 100% sensible to me]
> In your experience, what is a good ‘certain spam’ threshold? By that I
> mean the score above which messages are virtually always spam, no false
> positives.
There is no certainty; there is only probability. So you have
On 17.08.21 18:03, David Bürgin wrote:
In your experience, what is a good ‘certain spam’ threshold? By that I
mean the score above which messages are virtually always spam, no false
positives.
The default threshold for spam is 5.0, which works well for me. Only
very rarely a ham message scores a
Hi David,
If your default is in the 5 to 6 range for scoring, we have found that
11.0 has virtually no FPs and 15.0 has not had any FPs at our firm in years.
Regards,
KAM
On 8/17/2021 12:03 PM, David Bürgin wrote:
In your experience, what is a good ‘certain spam’ threshold? By that I
mean t
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 18:03 +0200, David Bürgin wrote:
> In your experience, what is a good ‘certain spam’ threshold? By that I
> mean the score above which messages are virtually always spam, no
> false positives.
>
I pushed it one notch, to 6.0, but:
(a) I've accumulated a fair collection of p
On 14.06.21 18:11, Henry Castro wrote:
I'm not sure if normal but FSL_BULK_SIG scoring have fluctuated a lot lately.
describe FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no Unsubscribe
Is this rule still valid?
I've had this problems with internal mail. Fixed by adding local rules.
Unfortunate
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:44:46 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > FWIW I've added 6 TLDs and 2 exceptions in the past 5 years.
> >
> I did wonder how many 4+ character TLDs there are - Can't remember
> when I last saw one,
As I said I have a list of TLDs that have been seen in my ham and
penalize
On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 15:25 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 03:10:52 +0100
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > You can easily update the rbldnsd zone data (just write/update the
> > > data file, no need to restart spamd) and could create a custom
> > > scoring value based on the DNS data (EG 127
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 03:10:52 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> You can easily update the rbldnsd zone data (just write/update the
> > data file, no need to restart spamd) and could create a custom
> > scoring value based on the DNS data (EG 127.0.0.2 for really 'good'
> > TLDs, 127.0.0.4 for 'so-so'
You can easily update the rbldnsd zone data (just write/update the
> data file, no need to restart spamd) and could create a custom scoring
> value based on the DNS data (EG 127.0.0.2 for really 'good' TLDs,
> 127.0.0.4 for 'so-so' and 127.0.0.8
> for truely spammy names).
>
A blocklist system th
On 2020-06-13 03:02, Dave Funk wrote:
This sounds like a perfect application for a custom DNS-bl lookup/list.
Create a local custom rbldnsd server "dnset" zone from a data file
with your blessed TLDs, then a rule doing a rbl check using the
hostname from the From address with custom scoring.
Y
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020, RW wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:22:40 -0400
AJ Weber wrote:
I want to try adding a score for a sender whose address uses a TLD
with > 3 chars.
I realize there are some legit ones, but I'm going to test it with a
low score and see what it catches.
What I did was grep
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:22:40 -0400
AJ Weber wrote:
> I want to try adding a score for a sender whose address uses a TLD
> with > 3 chars.
>
> I realize there are some legit ones, but I'm going to test it with a
> low score and see what it catches.
What I did was grep my mail for TLDs seeen i
Cool. Thanks.
On 6/12/2020 11:04 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
AJ Weber wrote:
I want to try adding a score for a sender whose address uses a TLD
with > 3 chars.
I realize there are some legit ones, but I'm going to test it with a
low score and see what it catches.
Is it just something like:
h
AJ Weber wrote:
I want to try adding a score for a sender whose address uses a TLD with
> 3 chars.
I realize there are some legit ones, but I'm going to test it with a low
score and see what it catches.
Is it just something like:
header From =~ /\.\w{4,}$/
You'll probably want to use
On 9/6/19 4:16 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and
> Mailman3.
>
> Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a
> score
> higher than what
On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
For example, I'm looking at an e-mai
On 9/6/19 12:06 PM, David Galloway wrote:
>
> On 9/6/19 12:01 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
>>>
>>> Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with
On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
> On 06/09/19 17:45, David Galloway wrote:
>
>> For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPAM 5.4 *" in
>> the subject but "X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0"
>
> since when does SpamAssassin also writes the scores in the
On 06/09/19 19:36, Bill Cole wrote:
Since pretty much forever, IF it is told to do so...
See the documentation of 'rewrite_header' in 'perldoc
Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf'
Thanks for pointing that out, I never realized template tags could be
used on the subject rewriting too.
I guess my fa
On 6 Sep 2019, at 12:35, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
On 06/09/19 17:45, David Galloway wrote:
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPAM 5.4 *"
in
the subject but "X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0"
Hi,
since when does SpamAssassin also writes the scores in the subj
On 06/09/19 17:45, David Galloway wrote:
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPAM 5.4 *" in
the subject but "X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0"
Hi,
since when does SpamAssassin also writes the scores in the subject? It's
a cool feature that I probably missed com
On 9/6/19 12:01 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
>>
>> Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
>> higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This
On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
>
> Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
> higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
>
> For example, I'm loo
On 06.09.19 11:45, David Galloway wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail n
Thanks Mathus, I think this was the case. After running spamassassin -D as
suggested in #spamassassin, DNS responses were mainly NXDOMAIN. I have put DNS
related output in this gist :
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/ychaouche/b412a7e5cb4c9501365c010734045eb9/raw/c3a69d7bf7dfdfe1d987489a15196
On 15.07.18 07:41, daniel_1...@protonmail.com wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08=1.781, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.001,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.139,
MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLACK=1.7]
autole
daniel_1...@protonmail.com skrev den 2018-07-15 15:59:
Postfix is run under postfix
+1
Amavis is run under user amavis
+1
I don't really know how spamassassin is run ?
only root can drop priveledges
maybe it's loaded as a
library from amavis itself ?
yes amavis loads perl modules o
On July 15, 2018 12:57 PM, Antony Stone
wrote:
> On Sunday 15 July 2018 at 13:41:34, daniel_1...@protonmail.com wrote:
> > I am running spamassassin through amavis as a content filter for postfix.
>
> Which user/s do those processes run as?
>
Postfix is run under postfix
Amavis is run under u
On Sunday 15 July 2018 at 13:41:34, daniel_1...@protonmail.com wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I am running spamassassin through amavis as a content filter for postfix.
Which user/s do those processes run as?
> But when I scan the mail from the command line I have a different score of
> only 0.9 and no
Rupert Gallagher skrev den 2018-05-08 11:24:
While reading from RIPE below, I recollected numerous cases of spam
from domains without own abuse RR. I then remembered making a mental
note about writing a SA rule for it, and now realise I just forgot
about it.
Is anybody using one such rule alread
Ok there is a deprecated rule, which did not do much, as it just queried a
dnsbl.
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:24, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> While reading from RIPE below, I recollected numerous cases of spam from
> domains without ow
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your explanation, I hadn't appreciated that there was higher
precision being hidden.
Thanks,
Geoff
> On 25 Apr 2017, at 09:39, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>
> Hoi Geoff,
>
> The scores actually have a precision of 3 numerals after the dot. The
> actual score of NO_RELAYS = -0.001.
Hoi Geoff,
The scores actually have a precision of 3 numerals after the dot. The
actual score of NO_RELAYS = -0.001. While rounding would still give you
3.0 as final score for this message, the actual score is below 3.
When you would have a ham/spam threshold at exactly 3, and the final
score wou
Geoff Soper skrev den 2017-04-25 10:27:
Can anyone explain why this isn't scoring 3.0?
take your calculator:
1000/3 = ?
if you take that results with a good calculator and * 3 it will say 1000
as a result, but most cheap ones say 999 :=)
where did that 1 go ?
A score of -0.0 is actually not 0, it is something like -0.01 (or smaller).
If it had a score of actual 0, it wouldn't trigger.
As such, due to rounding, it ends up becoming 2.9, instead of 3.
On 04/25/2017 09:27 AM, Geoff Soper wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, Score=2.9
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.0 NO_R
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 12:53:31 -0500
Roman Gelfand wrote:
> Consider the following header
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.4 required=5.0
> tests=AWL,BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
> DCC_CHECK,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
>
>
> Whe
Am 28.02.2016 um 18:53 schrieb Roman Gelfand:
Consider the following header
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
DCC_CHECK,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
Where the sc
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:48:46 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
> is the autolearn_force being ignored because of the initial BAYES_00
> score?
Yes, a Bayes point in the opposite direction prevents auto-training.
All the force flag does is override the 3+3 rule.
> Is there a 'autolearn_force_ye
On 4/21/2015 11:48 PM, David B Funk wrote:
I've got some home-grown rules that I trust to which have added
tflags autolearn_force
Recently I've seen some spam that hit those rules and racked up enough
points that they should have auto-learned. But the scoring analysis
explicitly says "autolearn=
On 10/9/2014 9:40 AM, Axb wrote:
On 10/09/2014 03:30 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/8/2014 5:03 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules
On 10/09/2014 03:30 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/8/2014 5:03 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score
On 10/8/2014 5:03 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score go
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 15:48 -0500, Robert A. Ober wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500 Robert A. Ober wrote:
> > > *Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
> What is the easiest way to know what score is applied per rule? Neither
> the server log nor the hea
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score got set after spamd was restarted?
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score got set after spamd was restarted?
__
What is the
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
> *Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score got set after spamd was restarted?
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 9/22/2014 4:11 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
Double-check your rule and score
On 9/22/2014 4:11 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
Double-check your rule and score lines for any minor typos --
particularly
On 9/22/14, 12:56 PM, Alex Regan wrote:
This working elsewhere for me but on my own server the score for the
rules I wrote are being ignored. Example rule:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
Spamd uses the rule but does not ap
This working elsewhere for me but on my own server the score for the
rules I wrote are being ignored. Example rule:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
Spamd uses the rule but does not apply the score. I am on 3.3.2 on
Mageia 3
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 5/13/2014 6:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
> Below is my SA.
> The problem is that the score is 0.0, but in the debug log has "got
> hit".
> What am I missing?
Rules whose names begin with two unders
M. Rodrigo Monteiro skrev den 2014-05-13 20:43:
The problem is that the score is 0.0, but in the debug log has "got
hit". What am I missing?
remove __ on the meta rules, then it works
ok:
meta foo (__bar && __bare)
not ok:
meta __foo (__bar && __bare)
rules begining with __ cant have score
"M. Rodrigo Monteiro" schrieb am 13. Mai
2014 um 20:43 +0200:
>The problem is that the score is 0.0, but in the debug log has "got hit".
>What am I missing?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules
states
"rules starting with a double underscore are evaluated with no score, and
are intend
On 5/13/2014 6:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
Below is my SA.
The problem is that the score is 0.0, but in the debug log has "got hit".
What am I missing?
Rules whose names begin with two underscores do not contribute to the
score. You'd need somethin
On Tue, 13 May 2014, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
Below is my SA.
The problem is that the score is 0.0, but in the debug log has "got hit".
What am I missing?
Rules whose names begin with two underscores do not contribute to the
score. You'd need something like:
meta SCORED_RULE__UNSCOR
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:47:33 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> It likely has to do with rounding. That 5.0 is likely a 4.999 or
> something. So there is floor/ceiling silliness that isn't really
> apparent from the reports. I think there are also scenarios where
> the rounding / display is don
Then likely some of those scores below
are -0.01 or something similar so they are bumping you JUST under
5.0
On 9/14/2013 12:29 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2013 at 10:47 AM, "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2013 at 10:47 AM, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
On 9/14/2013 7:24 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I've been having various issues with changes to local.cf not "taking".
>
> Seem to have resolved these, yet there is one more issue that troubles.
> (mostly typos apparently, BTW)
>
> So today
>>> On 9/14/2013 at 11:24 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 14.09.13 08:12, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>Yes the displayed scores are all rounded.
>Yet, just now, I got this:
>(which apparently did not round the same way ?? Just trying to understand)
>
>X-Spam-Level: **
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.
On 14.09.13 08:12, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Yes the displayed scores are all rounded.
Yet, just now, I got this:
(which apparently did not round the same way ?? Just trying to understand)
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
On 9/14/2013 7:24 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I've been having various issues with changes to local.cf not "taking".
Seem to have resolved these, yet there is one more issue that troubles.
(mostly typos apparently, BTW)
So today, after getting changes to BAYES weights to "take", I found some S
>>> On 9/14/2013 at 7:40 AM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:24:31 -0400
Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I've been having various issues with changes to local.cf not "taking".
>
> Seem to have resolved these, yet there is one more issue that
> troubles. (mostly typos apparently, BTW)
>
> So today,
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:24:31 -0400
Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I've been having various issues with changes to local.cf not "taking".
>
> Seem to have resolved these, yet there is one more issue that
> troubles. (mostly typos apparently, BTW)
>
> So today, after getting changes to BAYES weights to
>>> On 11/5/2012 at 6:44 PM, "Joseph Acquisto" wrote:
On 11/5/2012 at 10:34 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 10:10 PM, Joseph Acquisto wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 at 4:09 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
04.11.2012 22:33, Joseph Acquisto kirjoitti:
> I'd love to use RBL but unders
>>> On 11/5/2012 at 10:34 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 10:10 PM, Joseph Acquisto wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 at 4:09 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>> 04.11.2012 22:33, Joseph Acquisto kirjoitti:
I'd love to use RBL but understand I can't, as the "last IP" is always the
>>> same, as I
On 11/4/2012 10:10 PM, Joseph Acquisto wrote:
On 11/4/2012 at 4:09 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
04.11.2012 22:33, Joseph Acquisto kirjoitti:
I'd love to use RBL but understand I can't, as the "last IP" is always the
same, as I fetch all mail
from a single POP.Perhaps I am missing somethin
>>> On 11/4/2012 at 7:10 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 15:33 -0500, Joseph Acquisto wrote:
>> >>> On 11/4/2012 at 8:34 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 07:55 -0500, Joseph Acquisto wrote:
>> >> >>> On 11/3/2012 at 9:15 PM, "Joseph Acquisto"
>> >> >>> wr
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
