Hi,
An email travelling through multiple MTAs at different institutions
arrives with the earlier SpamAssassin X-Spam-... header fields intact,
including X-Spam-Status, but a later check adds X-Spam-... fields except
for X-Spam-Status.
The later institution say this is because only one X-Spam
On 2024-10-25 at 13:19:58 UTC-0400 (Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:19:58 +0100)
Ralph Corderoy
is rumored to have said:
> Hi,
>
> An email travelling through multiple MTAs at different institutions
> arrives with the earlier SpamAssassin X-Spam-... header fields intact,
> including X-Spa
On Nov 11, 2018, at 13.35, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> listsb skrev den 2018-11-11 19:20:
>
>> thanks, agreed. is continuation of this discussion ok here? or
>> should i take to the amavis list?
>
> its important that networks ip ranges is equal in all software used
>
> its not done automatic
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
what am i misunderstanding?
Is there some possibility that you're stripping external Received headers?
(grasping at straws here)
Heh. Ignore that. I have *got* to learn to catch up *before* replying to
stuff... :)
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
On Nov 10, 2018, at 21.01, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
listsb skrev den 2018-11-11 19:20:
thanks, agreed. is continuation of this discussion ok here? or
should i take to the amavis list?
its important that networks ip ranges is equal in all software used
its not done automatic
ALL_TRUSTED is not a amavis problem to solve
so keep it here, unti
>On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
>>i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i
have the following:
>>
>>>grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
>>/etc/sp
On Nov 11, 2018, at 13.18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has
come from. i have the
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassas
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 12.23, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
>> hi-
>>
>> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
>> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
>> from. i have the following
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 12.05, RW wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:35:18 -0500
> listsb wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 11, 2018, at 09.01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED t
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 06:43:27PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
> >>i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
> >>ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
> >>from. i ha
Amavisd does not use spamassassin *networks settings
Orignation bug is not spamassassin problem
Benny
On 11. november 2018 18.24.05 Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
hi-
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED te
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
>grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassass
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
> hi-
>
> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
> from. i have the following:
>
> >grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:35:18 -0500
listsb wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 2018, at 09.01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote:
> >> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
> >> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the mes
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 09.01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote:
>> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
>> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
>> from. i have the following:
>>
>>> grep -riF
On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassassin/99_local-config.cf:
On Nov 10, 2018, at 21.01, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
>
>> hi-
>>
>> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
>> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
>> from. i have the following:
>>
>>> grep -r
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
hi-
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassassin/99_local-co
hi-
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
>grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassassin/99_local-config.cf:internal_networks 198.
On 2015-11-12 08:20, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 11/12/2015 6:31 AM, Christian Jaeger wrote:
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I
On 11/12/2015 6:31 AM, Christian Jaeger wrote:
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I've spent
more than an hour on googlin
On 11/12/2015 12:31 PM, Christian Jaeger wrote:
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I've spent
more than an hour on googlin
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I've spent
more than an hour on googling and rtfm but couldn't figure it
out. Also
FC822 attachment by SA), feeding it to SA due to the system-wide
procmail recipe...
On that second run, the message previously classified spam does not
exceed the threshold. Thus the X-Spam-Status of no, overriding the
previous Status header which is being ignored by SA anyway.
Result: Subject header
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
>
> > It does appear that sa is the culprit but why it's doing it is not
> > evident. There's still not enough data. Perhaps turning up debugging
> > would be helpful?
>
> The apparent culprit is a
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
>
> That's an SA directive. It says "if the message scores spammy,
> prepend '[SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]' to the Subject header."
Ah. Missing s
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
That's an SA directive. It says "if the message scores spammy,
prepend '[SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]' to the Subject header."
Ah. Missing some messages here.
It does appear that sa is the cu
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
>
> That's an SA directive. It says "if the message scores spammy,
> prepend '[SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]' to the Subject header."
Ah. Missing some messages here.
It does appear that sa is the culprit but why it's doing it is not
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:06:00 -0700
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
Okay, here's another header.Shows X-Xpam-Status as no.
In local.cf I changed to this, just to be sure.
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]
Not familiar with how sendmail rewr
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:06:00 -0700
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
>
>
> Okay, here's another header.Shows X-Xpam-Status as no.
>
> In local.cf I changed to this, just to be sure.
>
> rewrite_header Subject [SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]
Not familiar with how sendmail rewrites headers. Is this su
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
> ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9P2o1ZZ026032
> (version=
On 10/25/2014 9:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9P2o1ZZ026032
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=25
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9P2o1ZZ026032
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
verify=NO) for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014
1
ssin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
> ecuador.junglevision.com
> X-Spam-Level: *
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
> MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
> Subject: [SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK] Confirmation of Order Numbe
*
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9P2o1ZZ026032
(version=TLSv1/
On 10/20/14, 9:46 AM, jdebert wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:39:57 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 17.10.14 10:08, jdebert wrote:
Will URIBL_BLOCKED cause [SPAM] to be inserted into Subject?
no, it will more likely cause [SPAM] _not_ to be inserted, because it
wouldn't be detected.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:39:57 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 17.10.14 10:08, jdebert wrote:
> >Will URIBL_BLOCKED cause [SPAM] to be inserted into Subject?
>
> no, it will more likely cause [SPAM] _not_ to be inserted, because it
> wouldn't be detected.
Good. Had me worried a bit there
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:13:49 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5
> tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
> EMAIL_UR
???
Are you using imap to fetch your mail?
Thanks guys. Yes I am using imap. What I have is a .procmailrc that
forwards to meganspam. That's how this email got to meganspam. Is
spamassasin is running twice? Once going to megan@ and then at
meganspam@. Wh
n 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
> ecuador.junglevision.com
> X-Spam-Level: *
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
> EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_DKIM_INVALID,
> URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
> Received: from ecuad
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:13:49 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> > The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
> >
> > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5
> > tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 09:34 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> I should check. I do well less than 100 legitimate emails a day, but I
> think I might be pulling in thousand(s)+ of spam.
>
1) check that your DNS isn't forwarding requests to another DNS.
Its the 'forward' statement(s) in your DNS
Am 17.10.2014 um 18:34 schrieb Cathryn Mataga:
On 10/17/14, 9:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belong
On 10/17/14, 9:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belonging to your ISP
or Google, that explains why the
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSW
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belonging to your ISP
or Google, that explains why the blacklists think you exceeded the free
limit: they co
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
> EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_DKIM_INVALID,
>
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
From me...@ecuador.junglevision.com Mon Oct 13 08:38:09 2014
Return-Path:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
ecuador.junglevision.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5
Am 30.08.2014 um 00:35 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 12:02 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 29.08.2014 um 04:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
>
>>> Now, moving forward: I've had a look at the message diffs. Quite
>>> interesting, and I honestly want to figure out what's ha
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 12:02 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 29.08.2014 um 04:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> > Now, moving forward: I've had a look at the message diffs. Quite
> > interesting, and I honestly want to figure out what's happening.
>
> it looks really like spamass-milter is respon
Am 29.08.2014 um 04:26 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> look at the attached zp-archive [...]
>
> Since I already had a closer look at the contents including your local
> cf, and I am here to offer help and didn't mean no harm, some commen
Am 29.08.2014 um 04:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> look at the attached zp-archive and both messages
>> produced with the same content before you pretend
>> others lying damned - to make it easier i even
>> added a config-diff
>
> But
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> look at the attached zp-archive [...]
Since I already had a closer look at the contents including your local
cf, and I am here to offer help and didn't mean no harm, some comments
regarding the SA config.
> # resolves a bug with milter al
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> look at the attached zp-archive and both messages
> produced with the same content before you pretend
> others lying damned - to make it easier i even
> added a config-diff
But no message diff. ;)
> and now what?
>
> maybe you should acce
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Reindl Harald:
header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
spamassassin-3.4.0-7.fc20.x86_64
spam
Am 29.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Am 29.08.2014 um 02:01 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
>> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 01:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Besides, your own reply to my first post to this thread on Mon also
shows this claim to be false. The output of the command I as
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 01:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 29.08.2014 um 01:20 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> > On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 00:30 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > besides the permissions problem after the nightly "sa-update" the reason
> > > was simply "clear_headers" without "add_head
Am 29.08.2014 um 01:20 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 00:30 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> besides the permissions problem after the nightly "sa-update" the reason
>> was simply "clear_headers" without "add_header spam Flag _YESNO" which
>> is entirely unexpected behavior
>
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 00:30 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> besides the permissions problem after the nightly "sa-update" the reason
> was simply "clear_headers" without "add_header spam Flag _YESNO" which
> is entirely unexpected behavior
No, that is not the cause.
$ echo -e "Subject: Foo\n" | ./s
Am 25.08.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
> but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
> below - not sure what i am missing
>
> spamassassin-3.4.0-7.fc20.x86_64
> spamass-milter-0.3.2
Am 25.08.2014 um 20:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 19:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 25.08.2014 um 19:13 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
>
>>> No tests at all. I doubt the milter generated all those missing headers
>>> including From and Date, instead of a Received one
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 19:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 25.08.2014 um 19:13 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> > No tests at all. I doubt the milter generated all those missing headers
> > including From and Date, instead of a Received one only. So it seems the
> > restricted sa-milt user has no
Am 25.08.2014 um 19:13 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 18:55 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 25.08.2014 um 18:00 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.7 required=1.0 tests=MISSING_DATE,MISSING_FROM,
>> MISSIN
d the modified subject
> as the milter user the unmodified
> [root@mail-gw:~]$ echo -e "Subject: Foo\n" | spamassassin
> --cf="required_score 1"
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.7 required=1.0 tests=MISSING_DATE,MISSING_FROM,
> MISSING_HEADERS,MISSING_MID,NO_HEAD
Am 25.08.2014 um 18:00 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 11:37 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
>> but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
>> below - not sure what i
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 11:37 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
> but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
> below - not sure what i am missing
What does this command return?
echo -e "Subject: Fo
Am 25.08.2014 um 17:29 schrieb Antony Stone:
>> Post follow-ups on an appropriate support forum. This is not it.
>
> I think you're being unfairly rude to the original poster here.
>
> His problem is not specific to spamass-milter (if it were, I would agree with
> pointing him politely in the d
McGrail:
> >>>> On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>>>> header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
> >>>>> but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
> >>>>> below - not sure
gt; On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>>>> header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
>>>>>> but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
>>>>>> below - not sure what i am missing
>>>&
On 8/25/2014 11:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 17:11 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 11:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 require
Am 25.08.2014 um 17:11 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
> On 8/25/2014 11:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
>>> On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>> header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
On 8/25/2014 11:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
> On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
>> but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
>> below - not sure what i am missing
>
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Hi
header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
See
http://www.jigsawboys.com/2006/06/28/spamassassin-rewrite-subject-n
Hi
header contains "X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0"
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
spamassassin-3.4.0-7.fc20.x86_64
spamass-milter-0.3.2-11.fc20.x86_64
spamass-milter -p /run/spamass-milter/spamass-milter.
Hello Cathryn,
Friday, September 21, 2012, 6:21:05 PM, you wrote:
CM> I'm getting these messages, some of them real emails, that get marked
CM> with [SPAM]
CM> even though X-Spam-Status: comes up as No. I updated to the latest build on
CM> Fedora though I think this has bee
This is pretty common - enough that I'd appreciate it if you could provide
more information on the cause of your problem, and how you fix it, once you
do.
Yesterday in IRC:
09:40PM < ke6i> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=2.0
tests=FROM_MISSP_REPLYTO, FROM_MISSP_URI,TO_NO_BRKT
I'm getting these messages, some of them real emails, that get marked
with [SPAM]
even though X-Spam-Status: comes up as No. I updated to the latest build on
Fedora though I think this has been going on awhile. It happens with
some email
accounts but not others.
Fr
ontinue to score as usual on <> senders.
Pete
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/X-Spam-Status%3A-Yes%2C-score%3D18.4---Still-delivered.-tp31591656p31651611.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
snowweb wrote:
It seems that if the sender is <> Exim always delivers it to the inbox,
regardless of the how it was classified. Apparently this is because
mailservers sending notification of undeliverable mail, identify
themselves in this way (for some reason which appears a bit daft to me)
T
ot SA.
>
>> and entered the address that I wanted obfuscate, but it didn't seem to
>> obfuscate anything, so I changed my address in the message source
>> manually
>> to myu...@mydomain.co.uk.
>
> Next time, please use example.com and friends for the domain part.
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 23:26 -0700, snowweb wrote:
> I'm getting many spams in the last few days, with spam scores far above my
> 4.0 threshold, which are still being delivered. Wondering if it's to do with
> the fact that they all seem to have no sender.
Uhm, wait -- what else did you expect!?
So
On 10.05.11 23:26, snowweb wrote:
> I'm getting many spams in the last few days, with spam scores far above my
> 4.0 threshold, which are still being delivered.
delivered? SA doesn't care about delivery, only about detecting spam.
The delivery is up to your MTA, e.g. spamass-milter
> X-Spam-Check
mAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on s1.snowweb.info
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-ASN: AS24560 122.161.32.0/20
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,EMPTY_MESSAGE,
FH_FROMEML_NOTLD,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS,FROM_NO_USER,FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, dannoz wrote:
>
> SA is correctly assigning a high score to an email (Content analysis details:
> (12.0 points, 3.5 required)) but the X-Spam-Status header reads: No,
> score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_BASE64_TEXT,
> MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,NO_RELAY
SA is correctly assigning a high score to an email (Content analysis details:
(12.0 points, 3.5 required)) but the X-Spam-Status header reads: No,
score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_BASE64_TEXT,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,NO_RELAYS,T_HTML_ATTACH autolearn=unavailable
version=3.3.1... any hints
anni.org (2008-06-10) on
> > jidanni2.jidanni.org
> > X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=1.9 tests=none autolearn=disabled
> > version=3.2.5-mon_sep__8_23_53_29_2008.jidanni2.jidanni.org
Yay, a 51 char long version string.
Indeed, I'd be annoyed (not frustrated, though) b
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentlemen, I am frustrated by the duplication of information in:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
3.2.5-mon_sep__8_23_53_29_2008.jidanni2.jidanni.org (2008-06-10) on
jidanni2.jidanni.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=1.9
Gentlemen, I am frustrated by the duplication of information in:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
3.2.5-mon_sep__8_23_53_29_2008.jidanni2.jidanni.org (2008-06-10) on
jidanni2.jidanni.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=1.9 tests=none autolearn=disabled
version
Hi Marianne,
At 10:33 26-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote:
I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting
headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the X-Spam-Level
should appear in each message, regardless of it's spam or not. But the
only header I see is X-Spam-C
Hi sm,
The startup parameters may be different. Verify what
"spamass_milter_flags" settings used in rc.conf to start the milter.
I'm in doubt we mean the same thing.
I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting
headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the
Hi Marianne,
At 12:34 25-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote:
the milter I'm using is spamass-milter-0.3.1 from pkgsrc, too.
This milter can use the message body returned by spamd, including the
rewritten headers.
I used it under Debian, and it did not need any further configuration.
The star
Hi,
many thanks for your answer.
Find out which milter is being used and whether it can be configured to
add the headers you need.
the milter I'm using is spamass-milter-0.3.1 from pkgsrc, too.
I used it under Debian, and it did not need any further configuration.
Regards,
Marianne
--
"Die
27;s up to your milter to add the headers as you can see from the above.
Huh? The only header is "X-Spam-Checker-Version", but it does not
write a "X-Spam-Status" or "X-Spam-Level" header to my messages as I
can see in message source. Isn't that strange? Exactly th
00914: Milter add: header:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on myhost
Huh? The only header is "X-Spam-Checker-Version", but it does not
write a "X-Spam-Status" or "X-Spam-Level" header to my messages as I
can see in message source. Isn'
All the spams getting through are < 10k.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Several-messages-a-day-are-not-getting-scanned-%28no-X-Spam-Status%29-tf4030196.html#a11448213
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
esposj schrieb:
I have recently upgraded to SA3.2 (via ISPConfig) and have several users
seeing messages come through without any SA processing. On my personal
account, I see 2-5 messages a day which don't have a X-Spam-Status and are
very obviously spam.
SA is called through PROCMAIL
I have recently upgraded to SA3.2 (via ISPConfig) and have several users
seeing messages come through without any SA processing. On my personal
account, I see 2-5 messages a day which don't have a X-Spam-Status and are
very obviously spam.
SA is called through PROCMAIL and I have confirmed
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
