[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields: > > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:37:35 -0500 > From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: installing URIDNSBL > > Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: > > Recipient address: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Reason: SMTP transmission failure has occurred > Diagnostic code: smtp;552 spam score (21.0) exceeded threshold > Remote system: dns;herse.apache.org > (TCP|206.46.252.46|57572|140.211.11.133|25) (apache.org ESMTP qpsmtpd 0.29 > ready; send us your mail, but not your spam.) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip> email containing the surbl permanent test point, and no spam quotes. The test-point URL used to only be listed in SC, although tests at uribl.com and rulesemporium.com both just report it as listed as a "test point" and don't list out any SURBL sub-lists it belongs to. ... So has apache.org jumped up their score, or is there some change in the listing here that's causing SA deployments to go nuts on this test point? 21 points seems absolutely *absurd* for just SC, or any test point. (Actually 21 seems a little bit out-of-whack for any combination of rules all looking at the same small attribute of the email, no matter how strong a spam sign it is, except perhaps an end-user configured explicit blacklist.)
