On 11/28/2013 10:33 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
On Monday, November 11 2013, I wrote:
Hi there,
Hi, again!
I am sorry to ressurect this thread, but after some time, investigation
and fixes, I would like to share what I did and ask for more opinions.
First, I have fixed the previous warnings that I was seeing on the
messages. URI_BLOCKED was easily fixed by setting up my own named
(which, I confess, I should have done right after installing my server,
but I was unfortunately postponing it...). UNPARSABLE_RELAY was
happening because I modify the headers of every message sent through my
server in order to anonymize the sender's IP address; however, SA has a
strict rule for checking the "Received:" header, and I needed to adapt
my modifications to that rule. Anyway, now everything's OK.
Having said that, my SA is still missing lots of spams. For example,
take a look at:
<http://sergiodj.net/~sergio/sa/spam.txt>
This is a spam message I have just received. SA did not recognize that
as spam, and put the message on the INBOX folder. This has been
happening for all spam messages I receive. I understand that a message
like the one mentioned above doesn't have many terms for SA to work, so
I assume it's OK for it to classify it as ham even when it isn't. But
take a look at this other message, for example:
<http://sergiodj.net/~sergio/sa/spam2.txt>
It's a classical spam, I think. The score is even higher than the first
spam. But it's still not catching it.
I've already looked at the tests performed by SA, but couldn't find
anything suspicious. So I'd like to ask for opinions here... Does
anybody see anything wrong/suspicious in those messages?
Seems you're missing received headers - did you munge those away?
