On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 11:19:44PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 19:54 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 18:20 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > ..snip.. > > > and here's one of the messages I mentioned: > > > > http://pastebin.com/m1de987d0 > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.2 required=6.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY, > RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_XBL,RDNS_NONE > > This one would have been flagged as spam when using the default > required_score spam threshold of 5.0. Also, I notice you're apparently > not using Bayes, which likely could raise the score above your 6.0 > threshold, when trained on these. > > On my check the sample also scored 0.8 for SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL. Plus > Pyzor, which is not enabled by default unless you install Pyzor. > > URIBL_BLACK as well as SURBL JP and OB triggered for me. These might > very well be updated *after* you received that mail, but it won't hurt > to check, if they are working for you at all. > > Oh, and then I got a custom rule worth 0.5 for any single Relay, direct > client to MX mail.
And for me it scored 13 (and that was despite bayes_00 scoring at -2.6! - I guess I haven't been blessed with any of these myself:). A large part of that score was from the Botnet plugin. It might be worth looking into that... HTH Mark
pgpvpAbX4HgEX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
