On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 08:45 -0700, Gary V wrote: > Without the entire > message I don't think anyone can determine if there is some problem > with > your system, or if this particular spam simply scored low because the > spammer is good at what they do. BTW, it is helpful to see what rules > hit. This is the body of the message: Corporate image can say a lot of things about your company. Contemporary rhythm of life is too dynamic. Sometimes it takes only several seconds for your company to be remembered or to be lost amonq competitors. Get your logo, business stationery or website done right now!
Fast turnaround: you will see severaI loqo variants in three business days. Satisfaction quaranteed: we provide unIimited amount of changes; you can be sure: it wiIl meet your needs and fit your business. FlexibIe discounts: loqo improvement, additionaI formats, bulk orders, special packages. Creative design for competitive price: have a look at it right now! ______________________________________________________ not interested... > Since you don't have the X-Spam-Status report, it will be difficult > to > diagnose. There is no way to know on our end if the sender was > whitelisted > or auto-whitelisted. In amavisd-new you should lower > $sa_tag_level_deflt so > both spam and ham get the X-Spam-Status header. > > $sa_tag_level_deflt = undef; # add spam info headers if at, or above > that > level; > # undef is interpreted as lower than any > spam level > > and make sure .royah.com is included in your @local_domains_maps > because the > headers will only get written if the domain is considered local. > Should I have .royah.com in my @local_domains_maps even if the postfix +amavisd-new+SA machine is just a gateway and does not have local accounts? Many thanks for your reply Sincerely, Yousef Raffah Senior Systems Administrator SSIS - The Savola Group -- Aren't you using Firefox? Get it at getfirefox.com yousef.raffah.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
