This could be a DNS problem returning a .2 (positive response) for all
queries.
what DNS are you using for your queries?
On 7/20/2008 4:03 PM, Yves Goergen wrote:
Hello,
I just received an e-mail with the following report:
X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details:
0.0 URIBL_RED Contains an URL listed in the URIBL
redlist
[URIs: unclassified.de]
0.2 URIBL_GREY Contains an URL listed in the URIBL
greylist
[URIs: unclassified.de]
3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL
blacklist
[URIs: unclassified.de]
5.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
[botnet0.8,ip=(...)]
0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
[89.183.23.141 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0
to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with
dynamic-looking rDNS
-1.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto
white-list
(...) contains information about the sending host that should not matter
here.
The message is a reply to a message from me. It contains my text quoted,
complete with my previous signature that also has the link to
http://unclassified.de. I was a bit surprised about the high spam score
of 5.0 and looked at the report. It says that "unclassified.de" is on
URIBL. I could not believe that and checked in at their site. But they
say it is *not* on the list. So what happened here? How can SA (3.2.4)
give spam points for a problem that is completely wrong?
