Am 20.09.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Thomas Barth:
I read that 5.0 is aggressive and suitable for single user setup,
conservative values are 8.0 or 11.0
depends on your glue, setup and bayes-training
many setups tag spam with 5.0 or 5.5 while the glue like a milter
rejects spam above 8.0 points
I ve checked most of the mails recognized as spam. The lowest score was
8.6x so far.
that don't say anything as i recall from other posts your bayes is
currently not working - the point is not what was detected but what
slipped through and why or became a false-postive and why
Here is another mail from ...local. It definitely was spam with zip
attachment. Common is a sender address with digits.
<wynn.54...@allfromboats.com> -> <tba...@txbweb.de>, quarantine:
l/spam-lEHVGcheLkyq.gz, Message-ID:
<20160920202635.6b90ec7...@allfromboats.com.local>, mail_id:
lEHVGcheLkyq, Hits: 19.118
May be I also should block sender adresses with more than 2 digits in
the name?
you should not block anything by single rules, that thread sounds like
you are a absolute beginner and in that case you should refrain from
blindly setup rules because you think you have found a spam sign somewehere
anyways, i can assure you that .local in a message-id is *nothing
unusual* and frankly i had even to step back from reject from-headers
with .local because a large part of mailadmins configure their systems
as 'mail.company.local' and in case of bounces (mailbox full as example)
the envelope is a null-sender and the from-header postmaster@fool.local
well, and all that systems have a message-id ending with .local and if
you want numbers - we would have rejected or tagged 981 *100% ham*
messages with a message-id ending with .local and my users would have
crucified me for such a setup
