I've asked them. But I am not going to expect they will move on it all that quickly if at all. It's been quite a battle in even getting them to admit there is a problem.
I have no idea whether I have shell access. I don't even know what that is. Sorry. But thank you for this much anyway. Maybe it will push them into doing something. Andy On Thu, August 7, 2014 9:24 am, Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/7/2014 12:05 PM, Andy wrote: > >> As requested, here are 5 long headers, just taken at random. I can >> provide more if needed. >> >> http://pastebin.com/g86GFGwp >> > > None of these have any detail on the SA scores. Ask Lunarpages to add > this line to the local.cf or user_prefs file: > > add_header all Report _REPORT_ > > This will cause an X-Spam-Report header to be added to all email > messages showing what SA rules matched. This will let us see what is > happening. Once that takes effect, post a couple more samples via > pastebin, but include the body as well as the headers. > > The -10 score on these seems to indicate that you are hitting a > whitelist of some sort. We will be able to see more once the extra header > is added. > >> and to Bowie, as for raising the score from 2.5 to 5, believe me when I >> say I've tried all different settings. The 2.5 was advised to me by >> someone who was a senior tech in the matter. As I say, I have not seen >> any false deletions of legitimate emails except when Lunarpages was >> sending me sample spam, or their replies had sample headers in them. > > All of SA's default rules are scored so that 5.0 is the optimal point > for filtering spam. If you lower it, you will catch more spam, but you > will also see more false positives. If you have lowered it all the way > down to 2.5 and are still having a spam problem, that indicates that there > are other problems. Once you get those other problems fixed, the 2.5 > setting will probably start causing false positives. > > Do you have shell access to the server? > > > -- > Bowie > >
