Ok, Fair enough.. I will change this listing to a whitelist_from_rcvd as
I assume this list is farmed by spammers. (Should be using that always
of course!)
Header below.
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from hopnet.hopkins.co.uk ([10.0.0.23] helo=mail.hopkins.co.uk)
by hopkins.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1HWSt9-0005j0-CG
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:48:11 +0100
Received: from [195.110.64.125] (helo=smtp.uk.colt.net)
by mail.hopkins.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1HWSt4-0005FR-5z
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:48:11 +0100
Received: from mail.pdcmltd.co.uk (unknown [213.86.218.37])
by smtp.uk.colt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 721B2126151; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:42:47 +0100 (BST)
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Bury St Edmunds - Unit SU34
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7710E.58A560A4"
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:54:43 +0100
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.607
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Bury St Edmunds - Unit SU34
thread-index: AcdxDTLGeReHjG9FQsG+HfB3+1kiMg==
From: "Guy Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Stonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Steve Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Lindsay,Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Tony White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ivan Stephenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Spam-Score: 40
X-Spam-Report: hits=4.0 required=5.0 test=NO_RDNS,VOWEL_
X-Original-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
....
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 03:03:10PM +0100, Anthony Peacock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Because, more often than not, the reason that whitelisting is not
> matching is that the headers you think are matching are not. Or there
> is a type in the whitelist.cf file.
>
> By not allowing us to see the entire header, you are making us guess.
>
> Mark Adams wrote:
> >Thanks for you reply.
> >
> >Why would this make any difference?
> >
> >"The headers checked for whitelist addresses are as follows: if
> >"Resent-From" is set, use that; otherwise check all addresses taken from
> >the following set of headers:
> >
> >Envelope-Sender
> >Resent-Sender
> >X-Envelope-From
> >From
> >"
> >
> >The only header that matches is "From:" which is the header I posted
> >below.
> >
> >It seems as if it is not reading the whitelist_from entries at all. Or
> >whitelisting is somehow disabled, is that possible?
> >
> >On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:19:06PM +0100, Anthony Peacock wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I would think we need to see the FULL headers of this example email
> >>before anyone can comment.
> >>
> >>Mark Adams wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>I have changed my reporting so it provides more information, and run
> >>>--test-mode with a message marked as spam, that should be whitelisted
> >>>
> >>>whitelist.cf contents:
> >>>
> >>>whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>when running spamassassin -D --lint, I see the following line
> >>>
> >>>[18351] dbg: config: read file /etc/spamassassin/whitelist.cf
> >>>
> >>>But when running test mode I still do not get any reports on it being
> >>>hit by the whitelist.
> >>>
> >>>Help!
> >>>
> >>>On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:51:43PM +0100, Mark Adams wrote:
> >>>>On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:40:27PM -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >>>>>Mark Adams wrote:
> >>>>>>On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:06:51AM -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >>>>>>>Is it scoring the whitelist lower or is it just not hitting?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Can you post your whitelist rule and the headers from an example
> >>>>>>>message?
> >>>>>And why do you think this message should have hit the whitelist? Show
> >>>>>me the "From" line in the email.
> >>>>Hi, Header excerpt below. Once again help appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>>From: Guy Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>X-Spam-Score: 40
> >>>>X-Spam-Report: hits=4.0 required=5.0 test=NO_RDNS,VOWEL_FROM_7
> >>>>X-Original-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Anthony Peacock
> >>CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
> >>WWW: http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
> >>"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
> >>then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an
> >>idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us
> >>will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Anthony Peacock
> CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
> WWW: http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
> "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
> then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an
> idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us
> will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
