On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 19:26 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On søn 26 sep 2010 15:27:47 CEST, Chris wrote > > > On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 04:47 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > >> On lør 25 sep 2010 02:53:30 CEST, Chris wrote > >> > meta SC_NET_HAM (USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DK_WHITELIST|| > >> > USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_DK_WL||USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL|| > >> > USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL||USER_IN_WHITELIST) > >> > >> there is still user in def :=) > > > > Benny, I'm still confused, sometimes that isn't hard to do :) anyway, I > > now have this: > > > > meta SC_NET_HAM (USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DK_WHITELIST|| > > USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST||USER_IN_WHITELIST) > > > > or should the last entry also be removed? > > only if you use whitelist_from f...@* > > >> > >> user_in_whitelist includes whitelist_from with can be forged, my fav > >> to be removed if i just can convence more devs :) > >> > >> if you remove all user in def then it begins to work, and i can see > >> you have redudendance with domainkey and dkim, if you as i see use > >> dkim then domainkey is not needed anymore > >> > >> > priority SC_NET_HAM -500 > >> > shortcircuit SC_NET_HAM ham > >> > >> change ham here to on > > > > priority SC_NET_HAM -500 > > change to -950 so blacklist is tested before the whitelist > > > shortcircuit SC_NET_HAM ham > > shortcircuit SC_NET_HAM on > > perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit > > > # score SC_NET_HAM -20 > > score SC_NET_HAM 0 > > > > is this correct or still borked? > > yes score 0 disables this rule > > try the fp mail now with current config > > spamassassin -t fpmsg > > better then the problem you see first in the report ?, i hope > At least it's picked up as spam this time Benny
3.3 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
[201.216.4.186 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
1.4 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT
[201.216.4.186 listed in
bb.barracudacentral.org]
-7.5 USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL From: address is in the default DKIM
white-list
0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay
lines
1.0 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
1.7 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08 BODY: HTML: images with 400-800 bytes of
words
1.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.5000]
0.7 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature
from author's
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK
signature
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
necessarily valid
0.4 HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG HTML-only message, but there is no HTML tag
0.1 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format
0.1 FROM_MISSP_NO_TO From misspaced, To missing
1.6 FROM_MISSP_MSFT From misspaced + supposed Microsoft tool
0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with
no rDNS
0.0 FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML Outlook can't send HTML message only
0.0 HELO_NO_DOMAIN Relay reports its domain incorrectly
1.9 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook
2.5 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers
1.0 SAGREY Adds 1.0 to spam from first-time senders
It still hit on this def_whitelist_from_dkim *...@embarqmail.com but that
can't be helped can it since the message had a dkim signature.
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
