On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 09:53 -0700, Gary V wrote:
> >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...
> >
>
> I can certainly see why this is not considered spam. There is not much here
> at all that would make this different from a ham message. I created a
> message with these contents and sent it to myself from my yahoo account and
> is was considered ham. Nothing in the body triggered a rule. This is one of
> those types of messages that I would feed to Bayes, then delete and forget
> about. If I got the the same message a number of times I would possibly
> create a custom rule based on the Subject. Most likely a custom rule for
> this would only be good for about a week, then I would probably never see
> another message with the same subject again, so after a week the rule would
> be a complete waste. I think you simply need to accept the fact that there
> is stuff like this that will make it through.
>
Sure I will accept that and thank you very much for your kind
explanations :)
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > $sa_tag_level_deflt = undef; # add spam info headers if at, or above
> > > that
> > > level;
> > > # undef is interpreted as lower than any
> > > spam level
> > >
> > > and make sure .royah.com is included in your @local_domains_maps
> > > because the
> > > headers will only get written if the domain is considered local.
> > >
> >Should I have .royah.com in my @local_domains_maps even if the postfix
> >+amavisd-new+SA machine is just a gateway and does not have local
> >accounts?
>
> Yes, and any other domains for which this gateway relays mail. This is
> necessary if you want to see X-Spam type headers.
>
Great, now I have it set as:
@local_domains_maps =
( [ ".$mydomain", '.royah.com' ] );
> >
> >Many thanks for your reply
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Yousef Raffah
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> 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
