> Matus UHLAR - fantomas hat am 25.10.2023 16:11 CEST
> geschrieben:
>
>
> >Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-10-25 09:36:
> >>I have:
> >>50_scores.cf:score DKIM_VALID -0.1
> >>
> >>check if you really haven't set score for DKIM_VALID anywhere, since
> >>SA complains about it being zero.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-10-25 09:36:
I have:
50_scores.cf:score DKIM_VALID -0.1
check if you really haven't set score for DKIM_VALID anywhere, since
SA complains about it being zero.
I guess this may cause DKIM_INVALID misfiring
On 25.10.23 13:08, Benny Pedersen wrote:
imho n
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2023-10-25 09:36:
I have:
50_scores.cf:score DKIM_VALID -0.1
check if you really haven't set score for DKIM_VALID anywhere, since SA
complains about it being zero.
I guess this may cause DKIM_INVALID misfiring
imho no, DKIM_INVALID have 0.1 in score, both s
jdow skrev den 2023-10-25 09:07:
Methinks you have here a very good clue to set a non-zero value,
perhaps (most likely), a modest negative score.
change of that score is a fail on its own
use welcomelist_from_dkim instaed
Niels Kobschätzki skrev den 2023-10-25 08:46:
did you set score of DKIM_VALID do 0 ?
DKIM_VALID is not overwritten by any of my local rules. So I would
expect that this is the case. But even if I set for example
score DKIM_VALID 0
in local.cf there is no change
rules is loaded in sequence
On 25.10.23 07:21, Niels Kobschätzki wrote:
>I'm having here a mail that scores as DKIM_INVALID. I tried sending the
> same mail to gmail for example and it tells me that DKIM is valid. Now I
> put it through "spamassassin -D" and I am even more baffled because the
&
On 20231024 23:46:18, Niels Kobschätzki wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas hat am 25.10.2023 08:16 CEST
geschrieben:
On 25.10.23 07:21, Niels Kobschätzki wrote:
I'm having here a mail that scores as DKIM_INVALID. I tried sending the
same mail to gmail for example and it tells me that DK
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas hat am 25.10.2023 08:16 CEST
> geschrieben:
>
>
> On 25.10.23 07:21, Niels Kobschätzki wrote:
> >I'm having here a mail that scores as DKIM_INVALID. I tried sending the
> > same mail to gmail for example and it tells me that DKIM is v
On 25.10.23 07:21, Niels Kobschätzki wrote:
I'm having here a mail that scores as DKIM_INVALID. I tried sending the
same mail to gmail for example and it tells me that DKIM is valid. Now I
put it through "spamassassin -D" and I am even more baffled because the
debug seems to s
Hi,
I'm having here a mail that scores as DKIM_INVALID. I tried sending the same
mail to gmail for example and it tells me that DKIM is valid. Now I put it
through "spamassassin -D" and I am even more baffled because the debug seems to
say that DKIM is valid but then scores
joe a skrev den 2023-02-28 17:37:
Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
Noted in a header this morning:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.]
*
From: "Bill Cole"
It is my understanding that an automated rescoring job was run quite some
time ago (before I was on the PMC) to generate the Bayes scores, which
determined that to be the best supplemental score to give to the greater
certainty.
I was around in those days. My me
joe a skrev den 2023-02-28 17:37:
Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
Noted in a header this morning:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.]
*
On 2023-02-28 at 13:38:35 UTC-0500 (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 13:38:35 -0500)
joe a
is rumored to have said:
On 2/28/2023 12:05 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
> From: joe a
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500
>
> Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are wh
> > > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500
> > >
> > > Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
> > > I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
> > >
> > > Noted in a
On 2/28/2023 12:05 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
> From: joe a
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500
>
> Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
> I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
>
> Noted in a
> From: joe a
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500
>
> Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
> I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
>
> Noted in a header this morning:
>
> * 3.5 BAYE
Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are.
I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY.
Noted in a header this morning:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.]
* 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam
On 2022-07-12 00:09, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
We have Bayes running on the main server, but my own local server
doesn't have it so hence why it's missing. I did however take all spam
I received myself in 2022 that wasn't caught and fed it to sa-learn
(for the amavis user), thx for that suggestion
On 11/07/2022 15:44, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 11.07.22 12:57, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
A few times a month we have spam messages getting through, often in
German, that have some spam score but not enough to be
marked/discarded. Always these messages are marked by DCC, since
they're of c
On 11.07.22 12:57, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
A few times a month we have spam messages getting through, often in
German, that have some spam score but not enough to be
marked/discarded. Always these messages are marked by DCC, since
they're of course bulk spam, but it's also not uncommon to see P
Hi everyone,
A few times a month we have spam messages getting through, often in
German, that have some spam score but not enough to be marked/discarded.
Always these messages are marked by DCC, since they're of course bulk
spam, but it's also not uncommon to see Pyzor as well. I've been
wond
On Mon, 26 Jul 2021, RW wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 18:05:35 +0100
RW wrote:
"&& !DKIM_SIGNED " means the rule can only be true if there's no
signature, so none of the terms with __DKIM_DEPENDABLE, DKIM_VALID,
and DKIM_VALID_AU make any difference.
Actually it's worse than that __DKIM_DEPEND
On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:08:10 -0400 Greg Troxel wrote:
So -0.2 means that there are two dkim signatures, one for each, and
they are both valid.
On 26.07.21 18:05, RW wrote:
It could do, but usually it just means that the sender and author
domains are the same.
> BTW, looking at metas in 72_a
On 26.07.21 08:40, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Correct. The fact that there are some scores that add up to approximately
-0.2 is negligible when compared to a standard threshold of 5.0.
Do you have false positives being caused by these emails? Do you have false
negatives? That's more importa
On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 18:05:35 +0100
RW wrote:
> "&& !DKIM_SIGNED " means the rule can only be true if there's no
> signature, so none of the terms with __DKIM_DEPENDABLE, DKIM_VALID,
> and DKIM_VALID_AU make any difference.
Actually it's worse than that __DKIM_DEPENDABLE is always true if there
On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:08:10 -0400
Greg Troxel wrote:
> So -0.2 means that there are two dkim signatures, one for each, and
> they are both valid.
It could do, but usually it just means that the sender and author
domains are the same.
>
> > BTW, looking at metas in 72_active.cf:
> >
> > m
On 2021-07-26 14:40, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Correct. The fact that there are some scores that add up to
approximately -0.2 is negligible when compared to a standard threshold
of 5.0.
Do you have false positives being caused by these emails? Do you have
false negatives? That's more importa
Correct. The fact that there are some scores that add up to approximately
-0.2 is negligible when compared to a standard threshold of 5.0.
Do you have false positives being caused by these emails? Do you have false
negatives? That's more important to look at then just focusing on one set
of
Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
> I noticed that pure existence of DKIM signature can push score under zero:
>
> DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
>
> ...so the cumulative score is -0.2.
>
> I'm aware that we don't have many
Hello,
I noticed that pure existence of DKIM signature can push score under zero:
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
...so the cumulative score is -0.2.
I'm aware that we don't have many rules with negative scores, but multiple
scores for si
.
The date is Jan 30, 2020. I'm running SA 3.4.4 (the version supplied by
backports on my debian machine).
Then sa-update is not running. Those scores are more than a year old. Fix
that first.
...which you did. Ah, the hazards of answering as you read...
The installs might be giving diff
ng SA 3.4.4 (the version supplied by
backports on my debian machine).
Then sa-update is not running. Those scores are more than a year old. Fix
that first.
The installs might be giving different scores for the same rule due to
configuration differences - for example, one might have Bayes en
On 2021-04-25 10:19 AM, RW wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 00:40:59 -0400
Steve Dondley wrote:
On both machines, /usr/share/spasmassassin/72_active.cf has this rule
which is commented out:
This is the legacy rule directory from before sa-update existed.
Have you not got another directory popu
On 2021-04-25 05:57 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.04.21 um 07:09 schrieb Steve Dondley:
That rule has this line in the 72_active.cf file:
Look in 72_scores.cf and compare the modification dates on that file.
Their scores as of today (saturday):
72_scores.cf:score FSL_BULK_SIG
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 00:40:59 -0400
Steve Dondley wrote:
>
> On both machines, /usr/share/spasmassassin/72_active.cf has this rule
> which is commented out:
>
This is the legacy rule directory from before sa-update existed.
Have you not got another directory populated by sa-update?
On 2021-04-25 01:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature wi
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no Unsubscribe
Machine B gives
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no
Unsubscribe
Machine B gives: 1.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature wi
It can only do so if report_safe is set to 0. With non-zero
report_safe settings, the original mail is encapsulated as an
attachment inside a wrapper message also including the report. That
wrapper message containing the SA report is "safe" because it is fully
local, the text/plain part won't look
's 1 now, by default. I use '0' because I overtly reject mail that SA
scores over my threshold, while stashing a pristine copy in a 3-day
message dumpster. The best choice depends on how you handle messages
that SA scores as spam after that determination, and who your users are.
The def
On 2021-04-06 04:19 PM, Steve Dondley wrote:
It seems to have done so. Thank you.
Some MUAs have a "Reply to List" function that uses the List-Post
header (and sometimes heuristics when that header is missing) to send
replies only to a list itself.
I've recently switched to Roundcube from gmai
Some MUAs have a "Reply to List" function that uses the List-Post
header (and sometimes heuristics when that header is missing) to send
replies only to a list itself.
Ah! I see that option now under the little down arrow next to "Reply
all". My day is made. Thanks!
It seems to have done so. Thank you.
Some MUAs have a "Reply to List" function that uses the List-Post
header (and sometimes heuristics when that header is missing) to send
replies only to a list itself.
I've recently switched to Roundcube from gmail. I didn't see that option
but I think I'
u.
Some MUAs have a "Reply to List" function that uses the List-Post header
(and sometimes heuristics when that header is missing) to send replies
only to a list itself.
Since the scores being added during delivery are much richer,
detecting enough info to do SPF and DKIM analysis
hen I hi
"reply all" it cc's the list and sends to you. When I hit just "reply"
it only sends to you. I've manually deleted you from the "To" box and
sending it directly to the list here. Hopefully that fixes things up.
Since the scores being added during de
he list and sends to you. When I hit just "reply"
it only sends to you. I've manually deleted you from the "To" box and
sending it directly to the list here. Hopefully that fixes things up.
Since the scores being added during delivery are much richer,
detecting enoug
finally dawned on me that the SA
scores that appeared above the message body and below the headers when
spamc was run without the -R option were SA scores embedded in the
message by the postfix software and were not getting generated by
spamc.
But that doesn't change the fact tha
Can you provide a working example message AND the operative user prefs?
OK, I was being very stupid. It finally dawned on me that the SA scores
that appeared above the message body and below the headers when spamc
was run without the -R option were SA scores embedded in the message by
the
On 6 Apr 2021, at 12:54, Steve Dondley wrote:
When I run spamc without -R option like this:
spamc -u some_user < some_email
I get the following output:
[...]
However, when I run this command on the same email with the -R command
to get the SA scores only like this:
spamc -R
t the SA scores only like this:
spamc -R -u some_user < some_email
I get this output:
===
2.6/5.0
Spam detection software, running on the system "email.dondley.com",
has NOT identified this incomin
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:55:24 -0700
PGNet Dev wrote:
> sorry, that's unclear
>
> spamc --help | egrep "config|socket|fallback|size|username|log-to"
> -U, --socket path Connect to spamd via UNIX domain sockets.
> -F, --config path Use this configuration file.
> Try conn
On 6/9/20 7:45 PM, PGNet Dev wrote:
> RW Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:15:49 -0700
> If you need this line you are doing something strange.
always happy to simplify.
rm'ing
--configpath=/usr/local/etc/spamassassin \
from spamd launch, I still see
...
Jun 09 19:44:41 dev.loc spamd
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:27:01 -0700
PGNet Dev wrote:
> next, launching 'spamd',
>
>--configpath=/usr/local/etc/spamassassin \
If you need this line you are doing something strange.
You are overriding the default config location with the default site
config location. There's not much th
I'm setting up a local/standalone instance spamd on linux
lsb_release -rd
Description:openSUSE Leap 15.1
Release:15.1
uname -rm
5.7.1-25.gc4df4ce-default x86_64
perl -v
This is perl 5, version 2
There are some rules (listed below) that have no explicit scores and
fall back on the default 1 point.
ADMAIL
ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW_FORM
ADVANCE_FEE_4_NEW
ADVANCE_FEE_4_NEW_FRM_MNY
CN_B2B_SPAMMER
CTYPE_NULL
DOS_DEREK_AUG08
DX_TEXT_02
EXCUSE_24
FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD
FORGED_SPF_HELO
FROM_IN_TO_AND_SUBJ
atch short subject now.
This could fix your problem, can you rescan the mail?
current scores:
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ 0.001 2.499 0.001 2.499
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO 0.001 2.499 0.001 2.499
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO_NO_SUB 2.499 0.001 2.499 0
m, can you rescan the mail?
current scores:
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ 0.001 2.499 0.001 2.499
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO 0.001 2.499 0.001 2.499
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO_NO_SUB2.499 0.001 2.499 0.001
score XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ 2.499 2
On 25/10/2018 11:43, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25/10/2018 10:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
bug number would help more...
On 25.10.18 10:58, Reio Remma wrote:
The bug contains no additional info. :) I was simply asked to post to
the list.
and this is exactly why it would be better
On 22.10.18 21:34, Reio Remma wrote:
I have this perfectly legit mail that has a +7.5 score from these
three rules.
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO From name in message + X-Priority
* 2.5 XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ Has X-Priority header + short subject
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ From name in message + shor
On 25/10/2018 10:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.10.18 21:34, Reio Remma wrote:
I have this perfectly legit mail that has a +7.5 score from these
three rules.
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO From name in message + X-Priority
* 2.5 XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ Has X-Priority header + short subject
* 2
On 22.10.18 21:34, Reio Remma wrote:
I have this perfectly legit mail that has a +7.5 score from these three rules.
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO From name in message + X-Priority
* 2.5 XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ Has X-Priority header + short subject
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ From name in message + short
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Reio Remma wrote:
Hello!
I have this perfectly legit mail that has a +7.5 score from these three
rules.
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO From name in message + X-Priority
* 2.5 XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ Has X-Priority header + short subject
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ From name in me
Hello!
I have this perfectly legit mail that has a +7.5 score from these three rules.
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO From name in message + X-Priority
* 2.5 XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ Has X-Priority header + short subject
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ From name in message + short or no subject
If it wasn't f
On Thu, 3 May 2018 10:38:14 -0300
Steve Mallett wrote:
> Didn't cc users@
>
> How do I add a non sa-compile ruleset to spamassassin? The googles
> are not helping.
>
If you mean non sa-update, you put them in the directory that
contains the global configuration file local.cf. In Linux this is
Steve Mallett skrev den 2018-05-03 15:38:
Didn't cc users@
How do I add a non sa-compile ruleset to spamassassin? The googles are
not helping.
non sa-compile ?
show what you have tryed would help us to help you more
all rules must support sa-compile
else spamassassin --lint will fail
i don
ote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have mboxs I'm running spamassassin against & many emails with very
>> lewd body text have the same scores as other emails without.
>>
>> I'm invoking via: formail -s procmail ~/procmail.rc < mbox
>>
>> S
Steve Mallett skrev den 2018-05-02 00:42:
How can increase the scores on bad words in body text and/or is there
a recipe specifically for that type of thing?
# add to local.cf
body FOO /foo/i
describe FOO foo found in body
score FOO 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
aditional can be
tflags FOO learn
rail - 703.798.0171
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Steve Mallett wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have mboxs I'm running spamassassin against & many emails with very lewd
> body text have the same scores as other emails without.
>
> I'm invoking via: formail -s procmail ~/procmail.r
Hi,
I have mboxs I'm running spamassassin against & many emails with very lewd
body text have the same scores as other emails without.
I'm invoking via: formail -s procmail ~/procmail.rc < mbox
SA V: 3.4.1
Running on Ubuntu 16.04LTS
How can increase the scores on bad words in
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Computer Bob wrote:
In this way, any user can move a mail to their .SpamLearn folder and it
will get learned.
It is a very bad idea to do that without review unless you *strongly* trust
the judgement and responsibility of your use
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:19:57 -0500
Computer Bob wrote:
> The problem I immediately see is that I get one big bayes of everyone
> and a 'one for all, all for one' bayes config.
> I would like to configure SA to be able to deal with the virtual
> users individually somehow but don't know if it can
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Computer Bob wrote:
In this way, any user can move a mail to their .SpamLearn folder and it
will get learned.
It is a very bad idea to do that without review unless you *strongly*
trust the judgement and responsibility of your users.
Allowing training without review may
I would like to thank everyone for your responses, they have been great.
This maillist has not failed to help me improve things everytime I use it.
So this particular server has virtual domains and virtual users in a
folder hierarchy there under all owned by 'vmail' user.
I have done the follow
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:44:25 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> On 15.04.18 20:04, RW wrote:
> >> >All setting bayes_path buys you here is the ability to run
> >> >sa-learn and spamassassin as root, something you should *never*
> >> >do anyway.
>
> >On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:55:13 +0200
>
On 15.04.18 20:04, RW wrote:
>All setting bayes_path buys you here is the ability to run sa-learn
>and spamassassin as root, something you should *never* do anyway.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:55:13 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
it's the only way to use per-user settings and bayes DB on syste
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:55:13 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 15.04.18 20:04, RW wrote:
> >All setting bayes_path buys you here is the ability to run sa-learn
> >and spamassassin as root, something you should *never* do anyway.
>
> it's the only way to use per-user settings and bayes
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:39:31 -0500
Computer Bob wrote:
Update:
For this location, it is ok to have a central bayes database, so I
turned off AWL, adjusted local.cf to contain:
bayes_path /Central_Path/bayes_db/bayes
bayes_file_mode 0777
On 15.04.18 20:04, RW wrote:
Don't set 0777. If that's s
On 16 Apr 2018, at 19:01 (-0400), John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Computer Bob wrote:
Why should sa-learn not be run as root ?
That's a general safe practice. Do as little as root as you possibly
can. Why risk a root crack from an unknown bug in sa-learn that
somebody has discovere
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Computer Bob wrote:
Why should sa-learn not be run as root ?
That's a general safe practice. Do as little as root as you possibly can.
Why risk a root crack from an unknown bug in sa-learn that somebody has
discovered and figured out how to exploit via email?
--
John
Well, now I am more thoroughly confused than usual. #:)
On 4/15/18 2:04 PM, RW wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:39:31 -0500
Computer Bob wrote:
Update:
For this location, it is ok to have a central bayes database, so I
turned off AWL, adjusted local.cf to contain:
bayes_path /Central_Path/bayes_db
On Apr 16, 2018, at 11:15 AM, RW wrote:
>
> You seem to be confusing unix and virtual users.
Sorry, I was confusing "virtual hosting" with "virtual users." Oops.
Ignore me!
--- Amir
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:34:41 -0600
Amir Caspi wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Computer Bob
> > wrote:
> >
> > I still am a bit puzzled how bayes db gets handled when using
> > virtual users and domains. I see no trace of bayes or .spamassassin
> > files in any of the virtual locations o
> On Apr 15, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Computer Bob wrote:
>
> I still am a bit puzzled how bayes db gets handled when using virtual users
> and domains. I see no trace of bayes or .spamassassin files in any of the
> virtual locations or in the sql databases.
If you want Bayes to run per-user with vi
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:39:31 -0500
Computer Bob wrote:
> Update:
> For this location, it is ok to have a central bayes database, so I
> turned off AWL, adjusted local.cf to contain:
> bayes_path /Central_Path/bayes_db/bayes
> bayes_file_mode 0777
Don't set 0777. If that's still in the wiki someo
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 11:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > On 15.04.18 11:55, Computer Bob wrote:
> >> Here is a root scan: https://pastebin.com/qdXMRzKb
> >
> > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.2 required=4.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
> >
On 15.04.18 11:55, Computer Bob wrote:
Here is a root scan: https://pastebin.com/qdXMRzKb
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.2 required=4.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS,SPF_HELO_PASS,
URIBL_DB
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 15.04.18 11:55, Computer Bob wrote:
Here is a root scan: https://pastebin.com/qdXMRzKb
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.2 required=4.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RC
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 15.04.18 11:55, Computer Bob wrote:
Here is a root scan: https://pastebin.com/qdXMRzKb
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.2 required=4.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS,SPF_HELO_PASS,
URIBL_
differences are AWL and BAYES_00 which means
1. your spamd' bayes database is mistrained
2. you apparently should disable AWL at least until you train bayes
properly.
On 4/15/18 11:34 AM, Computer Bob wrote:
Greeting all, *
*I have had some issues with spam getting low scores and in
troubleshoot
Here is a root scan: https://pastebin.com/qdXMRzKb
Here is the same run under spamd: https://pastebin.com/SvvYptYv
On 4/15/18 11:34 AM, Computer Bob wrote:
Greeting all, *
*I have had some issues with spam getting low scores and in
troubleshooting I have found that if I run a command line
Greeting all, *
*I have had some issues with spam getting low scores and in
troubleshooting I have found that if I run a command line check with
"spamassassin -D -x < test" on a mail in question, I get a very high
score when run under user root. When run under user spamd
[score: 0.]
0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host
with no rDNS
0.3 TO_EQ_FM_DOM_SPF_FAIL To domain == From domain and external SPF
failed
However, the SA check which was done trough mimedefang, seems like
giving other
e: 0.]
0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host
with no rDNS
0.3 TO_EQ_FM_DOM_SPF_FAIL To domain == From domain and external SPF
failed
However, the SA check which was done trough mimedefang, seems like
giving other scores, how can i t
Delivered to internal network by a host
with no rDNS
0.3 TO_EQ_FM_DOM_SPF_FAIL To domain == From domain and external SPF
failed
However, the SA check which was done trough mimedefang, seems like
giving other scores, how can i test an email to get t
On Tue, 2 May 2017, RW wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my
server and I
On Tue, 2 May 2017 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> > On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >>
> >> > I was checking to see what the scores fo
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my server
> and I noticed that there are two sets of scores.
>
> Is this expected?
On 5/2/2017 11:53 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my server
and I noticed that there are two sets of scores.
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_ZBI 2.7
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5
On Tue, 2 May 2017, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I was checking to see what the scores for mailspike were on my server and I
noticed that there are two sets of scores.
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_ZBI 2.7
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5 2.5
50_scores.cf: score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L4
1 - 100 of 1170 matches
Mail list logo
