Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: >> that's nothing like the defaults. >> > > My (uncommented) settings are: > report_safe 0 > trusted_networks 192.168/16 > lock_method flock > required_score 5.0 > use_bayes 1 > bayes_auto_learn 1 > bayes_ignore_header X-Bogosity > bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Flag > bayes_ignore_header X-Spam-Status > add_header spam Flag _YESNOCAPS_ > skip_rbl_checks 0 > use_razor2 1 > use_pyzor 1 > > > >> Is there an X-Spam-Checker-Version in the headers? or just that weird >> score and spam-report? >> > > No, there isn't. The exmaple content is this: That example content will NOT happen from the configuration you quoted. In fact, that example CANNOT be made to happen in SA without considerable effort. Period.
Something other than SpamAssassin is generating your headers. > .105.109.110] > > >> How are you calling SA? Are you using something like MailScanner, >> > I use spamd, nothing like MailScanner is involved. > > >> mimdefang, etc? or are you just doing something like calling >> spamassassin or spamc from a procmail script? >> > > No - the only relationship is between MTA and spamd. > What creates that relationship? AFAIK, no MTA can directly connect to spamd. They all require some form of intermediary, at the very least spamc. > >> Do you use spamc/spamd? If so, did you restart spamd after your edits? >> > Yes, spamd got restarted after each edit. > > >
