d as below via process
spamd in Postfix mail.info :
..etc..
spamd: result: Y 97 -
BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,TVD_SPACE_RATIO,T_DKIM_INVALID,USER_IN_BLACKLIST
..etc..
However the header do not mention it, and the score is negativ
mail.info :
..etc..
spamd: result: Y 97 -
BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,TVD_SPACE_RATIO,T_DKIM_INVALID,USER_IN_BLACKLIST
..etc..
However the header do not mention it, and the score is negative so
the email is considered as a non-spam
-
BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,TVD_SPACE_RATIO,T_DKIM_INVALID,USER_IN_BLACKLIST
..etc..
However the header do not mention it, and the score is negative so
the email is considered as a non-spam.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=2.0
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:18:00 +0100, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
Something is missing ?
restarted spamd after edit local.cf ?
Do I need to configure more than the local.cf file ?
feel free :-)
just remember that spamd/spamc only tags, not blocking
-
BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,TVD_SPACE_RATIO,T_DKIM_INVALID,USER_IN_BLACKLIST
..etc..
However the header do not mention it, and the score is negative so the
email is considered as a non-spam.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=2.0
97 -
BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,TVD_SPACE_RATIO,T_DKIM_INVALID,USER_IN_BLACKLIST
..etc..
However the header do not mention it, and the score is negative so the
email is considered as a non-spam.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
On 27/01/2011 14:53, J4K wrote:
However, spam was not rejected, although I think that this might cause
unnecessary backscatter in the case of probably forged From addresses,
which is a little unfair.
A reject 'in SMTP-session' will not cause backscatter... you have not
accepted the message
ie Bailey [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday 24, January 01, 2011 19:32
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: score=100.0 required=3.0 tests=SHORTCIRCUIT,,USER_IN_BLACKLIST
>
> On 1/24/2011 11:50 AM, J4 wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just would like to check that my settings
On 27/01/2011 13:55, Florescu, Dan Alexandru wrote:
Fire up what?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know SA does not reject at SMTP
session level.
I myself am using it with amavis and I have:
$sa_quarantine_cutoff_level = 12.0;
which will drop any spammy message with that score or above i
eful as it will not run any other tests (less cpu usage) if
it is sure that message is spam.
-Original Message-
From: Bowie Bailey [mailto:]
Sent: Monday 24, January 01, 2011 19:32
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: score=100.0 required=3.0 tests=SHORTCIRCUIT,,USER_IN_BLACKLIS
erver.test
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Level: **
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=100.0 required=3.0 tests=SHORTCIRCUIT,
> USER_IN_BLACKLIST shortcircuit=spam autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
> X-Spam-Virus: _CLAMAVRESULT_
&
-Status: Yes, score=100.0 required=3.0 tests=SHORTCIRCUIT,
USER_IN_BLACKLIST shortcircuit=spam autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Virus: _CLAMAVRESULT_
X-Spam-Report: * 0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a
shortcircuited rule * 100 USER_IN_BLACKLIST From: address is in the
user&#
From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mike Zanker wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:52:36 +0100:
>
> > Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to
> > personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff.
> >
>
> It does not relate to SURBL. It re
On 10 October 2004 20:44 +0200 Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It does not relate to SURBL. It relates to rules, no matter in which
*.cf file they are in /etc/mail/spamassassin. The rulename is
relevant, not the filename.
Ah, OK.
Thanks,
Mike.
Mike Zanker wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:52:36 +0100:
> Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to
> personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff.
>
It does not relate to SURBL. It relates to rules, no matter in which *.cf
file they are in /etc/mail/spamassassin. The ru
On 10 October 2004 11:24 -0400 Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Are you sure you're not using sa-blacklist.cf from SURBL?
Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to
personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff.
Mike.
At 07:56 AM 10/10/2004 +0100, Mike Zanker wrote:
On 09 October 2004 18:40 -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to
tell you what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't
from SpamAssassin itself. ;)
I believe
Hello Mike,
Almost the same thing here... but it's the USER_IN_WHITELIST that's
making me nuts.
My configuration files have no whitelist_from... but in the detection
description the USER_IN_WHITELIST is always there...
Best regards
--
Marcos Saint'Anna
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You wrote:
MZ>
On 09 October 2004 18:40 -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to
tell you what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't
from SpamAssassin itself. ;)
I believe that it is a bug in SA 3.0. This is a fresh ins
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:24:19PM +0100, Mike Zanker wrote:
> >There are no default blacklist entries in SpamAssassin.
> Exactly, so where did it come from?
Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to tell you
what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't fro
On 09 October 2004 16:19 -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, yes you do. ;)
I do what?
There are no default blacklist entries in SpamAssassin.
Exactly, so where did it come from?
Mike.
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 09:09:12PM +0100, Mike Zanker wrote:
> scored over 100 because of USER_IN_BLACKLIST. Now, I don't have any
> blacklists defined anywhere
> So, this seems to be a false positive. Anyone else seen it happening?
Well, yes you do. ;) There are no default blackl
Today I received a virus (Gibe-F) from an unknown e-mail address - it
scored over 100 because of USER_IN_BLACKLIST. Now, I don't have any
blacklists defined anywhere - in fact, SA is run only by MailScanner as
user mail.
So, this seems to be a false positive. Anyone else seen it happ
Matt Kettler said:
> At 07:02 PM 9/9/2004 -0500, John Fleming wrote:
>>I got a spam that scored 100 for this:
>>
>>* 100 USER_IN_BLACKLIST From: address is in the user's black-list
>>
>>But I don't have any blacklist to my knowledge. I do site-w
At 07:02 PM 9/9/2004 -0500, John Fleming wrote:
I got a spam that scored 100 for this:
* 100 USER_IN_BLACKLIST From: address is in the user's black-list
But I don't have any blacklist to my knowledge. I do site-wide filtering,
and the mail was for me. Explanations? Tnx - John
Clearly
I got a spam that scored 100 for this:
* 100 USER_IN_BLACKLIST From: address is in the user's black-list
But I don't have any blacklist to my knowledge. I do site-wide filtering,
and the mail was for me. Explanations? Tnx - John
26 matches
Mail list logo
