Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > Scott Ryan wrote: > > On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to - > > Re: Missing Checks : > >> Scott Ryan wrote: > >>> What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when > >>> scanning the same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the > >>> following checks: dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE > >>> > >>> Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam: > >>> dbg: check: > >>> tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,TVD_FW_GRA > >>> PHIC_ID3 > >> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET: enable network checks on the first server > > > > Network checks were already enabled. > > > >> TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID3: use sa-update on the first server > > > > Thanks, this check was now done along with the RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET check. > > [17166] dbg: check: > > tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET > > > > And was subsequently trapped. > > RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET isn't a rule new to the set available via > sa-update, so your previous run either suffered from a DNS timeout or > intermittent failure.
there's also a possibility that the two scans took place at different times, and the IP wasn't listed in bl.spamcop.net when the first scan was run. --j.
