Hi, sorry for taking so long to come back with the headers, but here they are finally:
http://pastebin.org/192054 Does this help? Thanks for your help Raphaël On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bowie Bailey <[email protected]> wrote: > Raphael Bauduin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to help someone using Exim with the Debian packaged >> spamassassin 3.2.5-2 and sa-exim 4.2.1-11 >> I've looked for information on how a mail is processed precisely but >> didn't find any explanation of the following. >> >> In the spamd logs, I see that each mail is processed 2 times: one >> "checking" the mail, one "processing" the mail. (any precise docs on >> those two steps?) >> The problem I encountered, according to my understanding, is that the >> checking step had a score of 3.9 (put in the header to X-Spam_score) >> with this info in the X-Spam_report header: >> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message >> 2.0 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04 BODY: HTML: images with 0-400 bytes of >> words >> -1.1 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5% >> [score: 0.0336] >> 1.4 MIME_QP_LONG_LINE RAW: Quoted-printable line longer >> than 76 chars >> 0.6 DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO Message contains a single large inline gif >> 0.0 DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT Possible Image-only spam with little text >> 0.0 DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML Possible Image-only spam >> 1.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto >> white-list >> >> The chekcing on the other hand generated this: >> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_95, >> >> DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML,DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT,DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04, >> HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=no version=3.2.5 >> >> The difference is: >> * BAYES_95 in place of BAYES_05 >> * score is 6.9 in place of 3.9 >> > > Sounds like you are running the message through SA twice. Possibly once > at receipt and once at delivery? The wide differences in Bayes score > indicates that you are using two different databases, one of which is > seriously mis-trained. > >> What I don't understand is: >> - If I'm summing up all scores mentioned in X-Spam-Status, I should >> get 3.9 - BAYES_05 ( -1.1) + BAYES_95 (+3 or +5, I need to check >> which value is used), giving 8 or 10, which in no case match 6.9 >> > > The culprit here is likely AWL. Unless you get the full report, you > have no idea what score was assigned by AWL. > > Put a message with the complete set of headers in pastebin and give us > the link to it. Once we see all of the headers, we may be able to tell > you more. > > -- > Bowie > > -- Web database: http://www.myowndb.com Free Software Developers Meeting: http://www.fosdem.org
