Mike Pepe wrote: > Hi folks, I got two spams through today and I'm a little confused as > to why. > > Spam 1: > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 22 01:28:34 2006 > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on quadzilla > X-Spam-Level: ** > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_80 autolearn=no > version=3.1.1 > <snip> > Now, I run it through sa manually, and the report looks like: > > Content analysis details: (10.0 points, 5.0 required) > > pts rule name description > ---- ---------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > 4.0 CATHY_CAPARULA BODY: Email addressed to Cathy Caparula > 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% > [score: 1.0000] > 1.6 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net > [Blocked - see > <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?221.155.184.221>] > 3.9 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL > [221.155.184.221 listed in > sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org] > -2.9 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list > > The second spam is almost identical to the first. > > I guess the question is: why such radically different scores? is the > auto-scanning not using my custom CATHY_CAPARULA rule? We need some background on your setup:
How do you call SA to get your mail scanned at delivery time? Do you use spamd to scan your mail? If so, did you restart spamd after adding your rule? Where is your CATHY_CAPARULA rule declared (ie: what file)?
