On Fri, 16 May 2008, Jeff Aitken wrote:
I'm thinking you're probably right that this is a timing issue. I just
checked another message that had different scoring results. The initial
message was received on 5/15 at 1156UTC and did not hit URIBL_BLACK. I
fed it to SA manually at 1203UTC and
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
> Yes. Hence my question about mail hitting URIBL_BLACK on the first run,
> unlike that one example.
>
> The point is, whether *no* mail hits URIBL_BLACK, or at least *some*
> mail does. Do you get any URIBL_BLACK hits at all? Is
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 16:20 +, Jeff Aitken wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
> > Do you see hits URIBL_BLACK hits in the incoming stream at all?
>
> Not sure exactly what you're asking here... but I included the entire
> X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Rep
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
> No DNSBLs in the original result... This *may* be due to the BLs
> catching up, and the second run being done later. This specifically
> seems to be the case for Razor (which hit in both run, just differently)
> and likely for U
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 14:19 +, Jeff Aitken wrote:
> For example, a message that was just delivered to my inbox contained the
> following report from SA:
>
> X-Spam-Report:
> * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
> * [score: 1.]
>
Hello,
Apologies if this is a FAQ or old news, but I did a bit of searching
yesterday and didn't find an answer to this one.
I'm using SA (3.2.4) site-wide on a FreeBSD-6.3 box in conjunction with
postfix, using procmail as the LDA. I'm using spamd/spamc, so the individual
spamc processes are ru
y Peacock
> CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
> WWW:http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
> "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
> then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an
> idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us
> will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
>
>
Thanks for your help Duncan and Anthony, I shall discount this reason for
being the cause of the problem. I will try and get the scores from one of
our customers.
Have a good day!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-Issue-tf2151288.html#a5941449
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 10:37, aurora wrote:
> ISP's SMTP server which then hits the customers SMTP/POP server. In most
> cases, your SMTP server will just find a direct route to the destination
> server and only the sending server and receiving server will be involved
> without a server being
Hi,
aurora wrote:
Duncan Hill wrote:
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 10:19, aurora wrote:
Basically, we now get alot of customers calling us saying that they have
not received our email and it's because it has been held on their spam
server with a score of 6, even though its a plain text email!
IP and the ISP's email IP
are not listed on any blacklist (checked with dnsstuff.com).
Again, thanks for the quick reply, it's appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-Issue-tf2151288.html#a5941127
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 10:19, aurora wrote:
> Basically, we now get alot of customers calling us saying that they have
> not received our email and it's because it has been held on their spam
> server with a score of 6, even though its a plain text email! We have only
> been getting these issu
text email! We have only been
getting these issues since we have switched the configuration over.
If SpamAssasin doesn't increase the score due to this extra hop/relay, I can
discard this as being a cause of the problem.
Thanks in advance
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.co
Logan Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Gregory T Pelle wrote:
> > Loren Wilton wrote:
> > > > I could be wrong on this as i am not much of a regex expert,
> > > > but it doesnt appear that this rule will trigger on normal
> > > > things like "Dear Jim"
> > > >
> > > > body DEAR_SOMETHING
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Gregory T Pelle wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
I could be wrong on this as i am not much of a regex expert, but it doesnt
appear that this rule will trigger on normal things like "Dear Jim"
body DEAR_SOMETHING /\bDear
(?:IT\W|Internet|candidate|sirs?|madam|investor
Loren Wilton wrote:
I could be wrong on this as i am not much of a regex expert, but it
doesnt appear that this rule will trigger on normal things like "Dear
Jim"
body DEAR_SOMETHING /\bDear
(?:IT\W|Internet|candidate|sirs?|madam|investor|travell?er|car
shopper|web)\b/i
describe
I could be wrong on this as i am not much of a regex expert, but it doesnt
appear that this rule will trigger on normal things like "Dear Jim"
body DEAR_SOMETHING /\bDear
(?:IT\W|Internet|candidate|sirs?|madam|investor|travell?er|car
shopper|web)\b/i
describe DEAR_SOMETHING
Gregory T Pelle wrote:
What is the procedure to have a rule score reviewed?
I have been looking over the scoring for version 3.1.x at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html
and think that a score of 1.6 is high for the DEAR_SOMETHING rule. I
know that our customer support emails
* Gregory T Pelle wrote (09/08/06 15:14):
> What is the procedure to have a rule score reviewed?
>
> I have been looking over the scoring for version 3.1.x at
>
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html
>
> and think that a score of 1.6 is high for the DEAR_SOMETHING rule. I
> kno
What is the procedure to have a rule score reviewed?
I have been looking over the scoring for version 3.1.x at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html
and think that a score of 1.6 is high for the DEAR_SOMETHING rule. I
know that our customer support emails have the first line
19 matches
Mail list logo
