The rule
header __CF_NOT_TO_ME To !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
PROTECTED])/i
header __CF_NOT_CC_ME Cc !~ /(?:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL
PROTECTED])/i
meta CF_NOT_FOR_ME __CF_NOT_TO_ME && __CF_NOT_CC_ME
score CF_NOT_FOR_ME 0.01
describe CF_NOT_FOR_ME Neither To nor Cc me
The mail:
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:05:50 -0500
From: "TINY Video Camera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A TINY digital video camera from DigiVu
This Advertisment was brought to you by Newageoptin...
The SA result:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on cfcl.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=0.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,CF_NOT_FOR_ME,
HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE,URIBL_SBL autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
And that's not right. It _is_ for me. The CF_NOT_FOR_ME rule should not have
triggered.
What I like even less about this is that if I send that message through
spamassassin -D
I get the results I expect (CF_NOT_FOR_ME does _not_ trigger).
debug: is spam? score=-0.371 required=0.5
debug: tests=ALL_TRUSTED,URIBL_SBL
debug: subtests=__CF_NOT_CC_ME,__HAS_SUBJECT,__UNUSABLE_MSGID
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:05:50 -0500
From: "TINY Video Camera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A TINY digital video camera from DigiVu
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on cfcl.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=0.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,URIBL_SBL
autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
Spamassassin does what I think it should; spamc/spamd fails me.
I am beginning to get the bad feeling that spamd is not working correctly.
But what if anything can I / should I do about it?
Should I adjust all of our user procmail files to call spamassassin directly
instead of using spamc/spamd?
--
Vicki Brown ZZZ
Journeyman Sourceror: zz |\ _,,,---,,_ Code, Docs, Process,
Scripts & Philtres zz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Perl, WWW, Mac OS X
http://cfcl.com/vlb |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' SF Bay Area, CA USA
_______________________ '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ___________________________
