On 6/4/2014 2:10 PM, daniele...@libertyline.it wrote:
Il 04-06-2014 17:56 Bowie Bailey ha scritto:
That message would have been blocked before it even got to my spam
folder. Even taking out the blacklists and Bayes, it still would have
scored 5.2 and I think those are all stock rules. Actually, the KAM
rule indicates that it would have also hit Spamhaus, which I have as a
blacklist in my MTA, so this message would not have even gotten as far
as SA.
If I scan it now it hits the blacklists for me too but when I get the
message it is not yet in the blacklists (my email is probably at the
beginning of this spammer's list) so the message is not tagged.
Greylisting can help with that if you are willing to deal with the
delays it can cause.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=20.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20,
KAM_VERY_BLACK_DBL,LONGWORDS,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,
TO_NO_BRKTS_MSFT,T_REMOTE_IMAGE,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_DBL_SPAM
autolearn=disabled
version=3.4.0
[....]
TO_NO_BRKTS_MSFT is the only major rule I didn't see hit in your
message. I can't tell which version of SA you have, but you should
also make sure you are up to date (3.4.0) and run sa-update to make
sure you have all of the latest rules.
I have sa 3.3.2 , I will check this rule; thanks for the hint.
This may be a new rule for 3.4, I'm not sure. It's always a good idea
to keep SA up to date for the best results.
--
Bowie
