Ok this is an interesting followup. Since I *know* that the gr_domain.cf
file is being read (I needed to change the '15' scores in there to 1.5 to
have a shot at receiving mail from providers like Mailchimp and Constant
Contact) I added the
score HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST 10
To *that* file, recompil
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Chuck McManis wrote:
Hi,
I restart spamd everytime I change local.cf and unfortunately John changing
the value as you've suggested and as I mentioned I had already tried,
doesn't actually change the score it assigns. Still trying to figure this
out.
...whoops, I didn't cat
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:52 AM RW wrote:
> Are you sure that you are actually using spamd? You wouldn't be the
> first to run an unnecessary spamd instance while the actual
> classifications are done in a different daemon, such as amavisd, using
> the spamassassin libraries.
>
That is a fair que
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:11:17 -0700
Chuck McManis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I restart spamd everytime I change local.cf and unfortunately John
> changing the value as you've suggested and as I mentioned I had
> already tried, doesn't actually change the score it assigns. Still
> trying to figure this out.
Hi,
I restart spamd everytime I change local.cf and unfortunately John changing
the value as you've suggested and as I mentioned I had already tried,
doesn't actually change the score it assigns. Still trying to figure this
out.
--Chuck
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:33 AM Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
I think he might also need to restart spamd/amavisd/whatever to have the
local.cf change take place.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
VP Fundraising, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM John H
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Chuck McManis wrote:
I have been trying to tune scores to achieve better matches with spam that
is getting through. And one test which shows up is HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST
which is being scored for 0. Doing a scan of my incoming mail flow this is
a huge signal, perhaps even a d
Hi All,
I have been trying to tune scores to achieve better matches with spam that
is getting through. And one test which shows up is HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST
which is being scored for 0. Doing a scan of my incoming mail flow this is
a huge signal, perhaps even a disqualifying one as I have yet to
Rick Zeman wrote:
> Does this score:
>
> 0.001 BAYES_50Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
>
> seem to be rather low for something with a 50% probablity of being spam?
>
No, as it has a 50% probability of being nonspam too.
50% is the "exactly undecided" mark.
Rick Zeman schrieb:
Does this score:
0.001 BAYES_50Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
seem to be rather low for something with a 50% probablity of being spam?
SA 3.2.1 run within Maia with autolearning on.
Tnx
BAYES_50 means that bayes thinks that its 50% chance to be ham a
On 8/14/2007 3:49 PM, Rick Zeman wrote:
Does this score:
0.001 BAYES_50Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
seem to be rather low for something with a 50% probablity of being spam?
Anything higher would seem to be a little high for something with a 50%
probability of being ham.
Does this score:
0.001 BAYES_50Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
seem to be rather low for something with a 50% probablity of being spam?
SA 3.2.1 run within Maia with autolearning on.
Tnx
--
Rick Zeman
Manager of Information Technology
Melwood Horticultural Training Center
30
I was using my own script for SARE updates last week. The I switched to
sa-update subscribing to openprotect.org. Then my GEOCITES rules seemed
to start missing; so I did some diging and found somebody else unhappy
with the GEOCITIES rules in 70_sare_specific.cf and was kind enough to
share. I
Hi Anthony,
I was using Openprotect's SARE update channel for my standard sare
rules. I am not sure exactly what the issue was, but believe it was due
to a redefined "USER_IN_WHITELIST" that they have somewhere in their
rule set.
To correct the issue, I removed all cf files that were updated from
Hi Mark,
Can you be more specific?
Was someone/thing changing your whitelist file?
Mark Adams wrote:
Hi All,
I would like to note that this problem has been corrected, and was due
to an external automatic updating source.
Thanks for all the help that has been provided.
Regards,
Mark
On Thu
Hi All,
I would like to note that this problem has been corrected, and was due
to an external automatic updating source.
Thanks for all the help that has been provided.
Regards,
Mark
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 03:50:52PM +0100, Mark Adams wrote:
> I have changed my reporting template, and now get
I have changed my reporting template, and now get this information
Content analysis details: (4.0 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
-- --
0.5 NO_RDNSSending MTA has no reverse
Thanks, I did run exactly that, and got the output that I posted. Do you
have any idea why I might be getting such a limited output?
What do you have set for reporting purposes in your local.cf file?
Regards,
Mark
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:31:16PM -0500, maillist wrote:
> Mark Adams wrote:
> >>
>
> You could run: "spamassassin --test-mode < message", and see what it is
> scoring.
>
Hi There,
I have tried this, and get the below result.
--_=_NextPart_001_01C7710E.58A560A4--
hits=4.0 required=5.0 test=NO_RDNS,VOWEL_FROM_7
This does not show whitelist hits, should it?
Regards,
Ma
Mark Adams wrote:
Hi All,
I have not got to the bottom of this. Does anyone know how to report on
whether a mail is having points deducted because it is whitelisted?
Regards,
Mark
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:34:58PM +, Mark Adams wrote:
Thanks for that,
The lint has not complained abou
Hi All,
I have not got to the bottom of this. Does anyone know how to report on
whether a mail is having points deducted because it is whitelisted?
Regards,
Mark
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:34:58PM +, Mark Adams wrote:
> Thanks for that,
>
> The lint has not complained about any config probl
Thanks for that,
The lint has not complained about any config problems with the line you
have suggested. Do you know a quick and easy way of testing whether the
whitelisting is working correctly? I have a reporting template setup as
below, but this never shows any whitelist hits. (I'm probably jus
Mark Adams wrote:
Hi All,
Quick questions regarding whitelisting. I have read that whitelisting
applies -50 points whether using whitelist_from or whitelist_from_rcvd.
My question is can this amount be altered?
Thanks for any help.
Regards,
Mark
Yes edit your /etc/mail/spamassassin/local
Hi All,
Quick questions regarding whitelisting. I have read that whitelisting
applies -50 points whether using whitelist_from or whitelist_from_rcvd.
My question is can this amount be altered?
Thanks for any help.
Regards,
Mark
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got the following in a message from our list management software:
>
> *X-Spam-Status: * Yes, hits=9.7 tagged_above=0.0 required=6.3
> tests=AWL, BAYES_20, NO_RELAYS
> *X-Spam-Level: * *
> *X-Spam-Flag: * YES
>
> Basic configuration:
> Debian Sarge
> Postfix
Hi,
I got the following in a message from our list management software:
*X-Spam-Status: * Yes, hits=9.7 tagged_above=0.0 required=6.3 tests=AWL,
BAYES_20, NO_RELAYS
*X-Spam-Level: * *
*X-Spam-Flag: * YES
Basic configuration:
Debian Sarge
Postfix
amavisd-new
spamassassin 3.001003
stand
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 1:15:14 PM, Tim Donahue wrote:
> I was wondering if subdomains need to be reported for SURBL rules to get
> triggered. I just found an address in a spam that I grabbed from one of
> my umm... "throw away" accounts that is a subdomain of a domain that is
> listed in t
I was wondering if subdomains need to be reported for SURBL rules to get
triggered. I just found an address in a spam that I grabbed from one of
my umm... "throw away" accounts that is a subdomain of a domain that is
listed in the SURBL lists. I was using the spam (on that is advertizing
software
Theodore Heise wrote:
This seems counterintuitive to me, based on my understanding of
probability and statistics (which is admitedly just enough to be
dangerous). Is this a result of some interaction? For example a
message that meets BAYES_99 is also more likely to trigger some
network tests, so
Hi all,
This may have been addressed previously, but I couldn't find it in
the list archives.
I was looking over scores of my newly installed 3.0.0-rc2 and
noticed that for fourth column[1] the BAYES_95 score is higher than
BAYES_99.
score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.665 -2.599
score BAYES_
30 matches
Mail list logo
