Thank you very much for your quick response! I will tell the person to fix his date problem.
On Monday 19 December 2005 14:39, Paolo Cravero as2594 wrote: > 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
