Liviu Lalescu wrote:
Spamassassin is reporting it as spam, with a score of 5.6, but it is surely
not spam. I have also used a "sa-learn --ham" on it, but even after that the
message is still flagged as spam. I have done "sa-learn --ham timetabling"
and after that "spamassassin -t < timetabling >timetabling.out", obtaining
also a 5.6 score.
I can mention that I have used learning (sa-learn) for about 8000 ham messages
and for 14 spam messages.
Thus Bayesian does not kick in: obvious since no BAYES_* test gets reported.
Anyway, SpamAssassin is NOT guilty at all in this false positive.
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
0.9 MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID Message-Id for external message added locally
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.9 DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX Date: is 96 hours or more after Received: date
Your correspondant sent a message dated 19 *JANUARY* *2006*. This alone
would let the message through.
0.5 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
0.9 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sender in whois.rfc-ignorant.org
1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in
postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
Paulo's provider has been listed in rfc-ignorant.org lists. Go to those
websites to understand why.
Then, take some time to finish your Bayesian engine training and feed
it/him/her some good ol' spam, so that is starts working.
Last but not least, add Paulo in whitelisted senders.
Paolo
