See the below message parts
(the complete message does not pass the MLs filter)
Notably both bayes and AWL are wrong.
while I understand why bayes might have done that, i dont understand
what AWL is doing here.
I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does
it hit?
Return-path: <virenwarndie...@virenschutz-downloaden.info>
Envelope-to: a...@exys.org
Received: from host231.dhms-domainmanagement.net ([91.199.51.231])
Subject: Virenwarnung - Ihr PC ist=?UTF-8?Q?=20ungesch=C3=BCtzt?=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <knuula.a6m...@localhost>
To: a...@exys.org
X-Spam-Report:
Content analysis details: (6.0 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
2.1 RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM RBL: NJABL: sender is confirmed spam source
[91.199.51.231 listed in combined.njabl.org]
-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
2.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
[URIs: virenschutz-downloadenDOTinfo]
1.9 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: virenschutz-downloadenDOTinfo]
1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: virenschutz-downloadenDOTinfo]
1.5 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: virenschutz-downloadenDOTinfo]
1.5 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: virenschutz-downloadenDOTinfo]
0.2 SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8 Message uses character set often used in spam
-1.9 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Flag: YES
