[Fwd: Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam]

2005-02-17 Thread Daniel Draes
Hi folks, I have to repost this mail because I have no answer yet. Sorry about this, has nobody an idea?? Pls help, I am drowning in junk! ;) Daniel --- Begin Message --- Some more ideas I have confixx installed, and my email is forwarded through a virtual user table. That means my account [

Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-16 Thread Daniel Draes
Some more ideas I have confixx installed, and my email is forwarded through a virtual user table. That means my account [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does that actually mean the mail will be passed to postfix again (and therefor to SA as well??) That could be my p

Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-16 Thread Daniel Draes
Anyways, shouldn't SA be intelligent enough to scan mails only once by seeing the X-flags and stop further processing? Since the X-Spam-* headers can be forged, we ignore them. Thanks, I almost expected that. That leaves my problem back to - Why is SA scanning my mails twice even though p

Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-16 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 11:21:53PM +0100, Daniel Draes wrote: > Anyways, shouldn't SA be intelligent enough to scan mails only once by > seeing the X-flags and stop further processing? Since the X-Spam-* headers can be forged, we ignore them. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Kluge.net belongs to

Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-16 Thread Daniel Draes
Hi, nobody any more help here? I am glad to provide more details about my config if needed. Anyways, shouldn't SA be intelligent enough to scan mails only once by seeing the X-flags and stop further processing? Thx, Daniel Usually that means the message has been double-scanned.. First at the MTA

Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-15 Thread Daniel Draes
Hi, Usually that means the message has been double-scanned.. First at the MTA layer, where it got tagged as spam and encapsulated. The encapsulation also winds up creating new headers for the message. The second time it got called at the MDA layer (ie: procmail) and the new headers resulted in a

Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-15 Thread Matt Kettler
At 01:30 PM 2/15/2005, Daniel Draes wrote: Here is what happens: SA gets the mail and checks it nicely. However, applying points to the mail seems to fail somehow. For example I have mails where the subjects will be rewritten according my confing with '*SPAM*' but the SA-Spam-Status Flag

Re: Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-15 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 07:30:33PM +0100, Daniel Draes wrote: > Any ideas whats wrong with my setup? My guess is that you're running the message through SpamAssassin twice. The first time marks it up appropriately, then the second time sees a substantially different message and marks it up differ

Wierd Problem identifying Spam

2005-02-15 Thread Daniel Draes
Hi folks, I ahve a pretty wierd problem here and cannot figure out why. Here is my system: SuSe 9.2 Postfix 2.0.19 SpamAssassin 2.64 SA is runnung as deamon, and postfix is connecting correctly to the assigned TCP port. Here is what happens: SA gets the mail and checks it nicely. However, applyin