Re: Is SA scoring affected by envelope field changes?

On 22.11.16 13:11, MRob wrote: I'd like to ask if SA scoring would be affected by potential changes in the envelope fields (which presumably depends on when in the mail flow SA is used, Postfix in this case): * content_filter when receive_override_options=no_address_mappings (sent to f

Is SA scoring affected by envelope field changes?

I'd like to ask if SA scoring would be affected by potential changes in the envelope fields (which presumably depends on when in the mail flow SA is used, Postfix in this case): * content_filter when receive_override_options=no_address_mappings (sent to filter via SMTP) * content_f

Re: SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:20:41 -0400 David F. Skoll wrote: > On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100 > RW wrote: > > > It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding > > towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it > > becomes more complicated if one needs to handl

Re: SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100 RW wrote: > It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding > towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it > becomes more complicated if one needs to handle threholds close to, or > below, zero and which aren't multiples of 0

Re: SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:12:03 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > I assume he knows about all that. Yet, being confronted with the > initial mystery of 4.9 vs 5.0 and a sneaky spam refusing to cross > that all-magic threshold, he seems to have forgotten about rounding. If you reread the original p

Re: SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 00:59 +0100, RW wrote: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400 Harry Putnam wrote: The real reason for what you're observing here is (as RW pointed out in a follow-up post), that SPF_SOFTFAIL has a score of 0.972 -- that, and you looking at the rounded scores in the brief summar

Re: SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:15:46 -0400 Harry Putnam wrote: > RW writes: > > I had a look into it, and it seems that rounding is handled in an > > unusual way. It starts by rounding to the nearest 0.1, and then > > subtracts 0.1 if the result is non-spam to avoid the case of: > > > > X-Spam-Status: N

Re: SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

RW writes: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400 > Harry Putnam wrote: [...] >> I assumed it had something to do with rounding or something so I >> increased the score to 4.1 to get that message to break the spam level >> of 5. >> >> Now the same mail shows a total of 5.1 >> >> 4.1 is shown fo

Re: SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400 Harry Putnam wrote: > SA is letting mail thru as ham that should be spam apparently based on > what is too low a score (for my mail) for URIBL_JP_SURBL which was > 1.9 by default. > > I pushed it up to 4. > > But then I see a report that shows a total score of

SA Scoring... mysterious point loss

SA is letting mail thru as ham that should be spam apparently based on what is too low a score (for my mail) for URIBL_JP_SURBL which was 1.9 by default. I pushed it up to 4. But then I see a report that shows a total score of 4.9 when 4.0 is shown for URIBL_JP_SURBL 1.0 is shown for SPF_SOFTFA

Re: SA Scoring

Mike Kenny wrote: > I have copied a mail to spa.mail and now I execute > > $ cat spam.mail|spamassassin > > which outputs along with the message: > > X-Spam-Flag: YES > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.5 (2006-08-29) on > mx4.mydomain.co.za > X-Spam-Level: *

RE: SA Scoring

how are you moving it to spam path location? _ From: Mike Kenny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:36 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; GLUG Tech Subject: SA Scoring I have copied a mail to spa.mail and now I execute $ cat spam.mail|spamassassin

SA Scoring

I have copied a mail to spa.mail and now I execute $ cat spam.mail|spamassassin which outputs along with the message: X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.5 (2006-08-29) on mx4.mydomain.co.za X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORG

Re: SA scoring my domain mail

Woops, my mistake. I hit reply, and the reply of course went to the OP. And not realizing, I changed it to the spamassassin group, but the OP posted to the correct forum, a mailscanner forum. My bad. :) Evan At 09:43 AM 11/16/2006, you wrote: At 08:53 AM 11/16/2006, you wrote: Hi all. Rece

Re: SA scoring my domain mail

On Thursday 16 November 2006 12:43 pm, Evan Platt wrote: > At 08:53 AM 11/16/2006, you wrote: > >Hi all. > > > >Recently, I upgraded from spamassassin-3.0.4 to spamassassin-3.1.7. > > Whereas previously I had whitelisted my domain so that SA wouldn't score > > mail coming from my domain, after the

Re: SA scoring my domain mail

At 08:53 AM 11/16/2006, you wrote: Hi all. Recently, I upgraded from spamassassin-3.0.4 to spamassassin-3.1.7. Whereas previously I had whitelisted my domain so that SA wouldn't score mail coming from my domain, after the upgrade it is. How can I correct this? I likely won't be much help, b

Re: SA scoring my domain mail

On Thursday 16 November 2006 9:49 am, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:29:15AM -0500, Dimitri Yioulos wrote: > > Recently, I upgraded from spamassassin-3.0.4 tp spamassassin-3.1.7. > > Whereas previously I had whitelisted my domain so that SA wouldn't score > > mail coming from

Re: SA scoring my domain mail

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:29:15AM -0500, Dimitri Yioulos wrote: > Recently, I upgraded from spamassassin-3.0.4 tp spamassassin-3.1.7. Whereas > previously I had whitelisted my domain so that SA wouldn't score mail coming > from my domain, after the upgrade it is. How can I correct this? You p

SA scoring my domain mail

Hi all. Recently, I upgraded from spamassassin-3.0.4 tp spamassassin-3.1.7. Whereas previously I had whitelisted my domain so that SA wouldn't score mail coming from my domain, after the upgrade it is. How can I correct this? Thanks. Dimitri -- This message has been scanned for viruses and

Re: SA scoring not labeling spam as {Spam?}

jason lingnau wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: > >> jason lingnau wrote: >> >>> Hi yall! , >>> >>> Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions! >>> >>> SA version 2.83/razor2 >> >> >> Erm, check that version number.. there are no SA version between 2.

Re: SA scoring not labeling spam as {Spam?}

On Jan 18, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: jason lingnau wrote: Hi yall! , Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions! SA version 2.83/razor2 Erm, check that version number.. there are no SA version between 2.66 and 2.99. centOS machine running latest version

Re: SA scoring not labeling spam as {Spam?}

jason lingnau wrote: > Hi yall! , > > Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions! > > SA version 2.83/razor2 Erm, check that version number.. there are no SA version between 2.66 and 2.99. > > Most spam of the spam SA scores ( 5 and over) is getting labeled as > {Spam?} but

SA scoring not labeling spam as {Spam?}

Hi yall! ,Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions! SA version 2.83/razor2Most spam of the spam SA scores ( 5 and over) is getting labeled as {Spam?} but not all . Subject: [RE] 01-17-06 Update ReleasedContent analysis details:   (5.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name       

Re: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring

From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> so SA does not trap it, should i be looking at a procmail rule to dump the emails. Not a bad idea. If for some reason you really want to keep them around but detect them, sare_specific or one of the similar files should catch these. I forget what I d

Re: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring

> so SA does not trap it, should i be looking at a procmail rule to dump the > emails. Not a bad idea. If for some reason you really want to keep them around but detect them, sare_specific or one of the similar files should catch these. Loren

RE: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring

From: Obantec Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ok so its a virus on some else's PC but i see quite a few incoming > in the last week. my AV dropped the attached zip. > > so SA does not trap it, should i be looking at a procmail rule to > dump the emails. SA does not intentionally try to cat

Re: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 05:27:07PM -, Obantec Support wrote: > ok so its a virus on some else's PC but i see quite a few incoming in the > last week. my AV dropped the attached zip. I call my anti-virus (ClamAV via clamassassin, BTW) from /etc/procmailrc. If it says it's a virus, it goes stra

Re: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring

t; To: Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:20 PM Subject: RE: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring > From: Obantec Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >[ Example Spam (trimmed to the basics) ] > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > S

RE: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring

From: Obantec Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [ Example Spam (trimmed to the basics) ] > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: You visit illegal websites > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > we have logged your IP-address on more than 30 illegal Websites. > > Important: > Plea

RE: seeing a few new spams with low SA scoring

Obantec Support wrote: > SA3.0.0 lowest seen 1.5 > (virus snipped) That's not spam, it's a virus... -- Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902 Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer