Am 2024-05-13 04:33, schrieb jdow:
Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS?
{^_^}
The mail/report is authentic. They already corrected this "error" or
changed the sending server. In today's report FORGED_SPF_HELO is 0.001
and the score is below 5 :)
On 20240512
Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS?
{^_^}
On 20240512 06:56:59, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status
Thomas Barth skrev den 2024-05-12 15:56:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes,
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.938 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
On 12.05.24 06:39, Greg Troxel wrote:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
as it was already said, it's not Debian, it's default score in amavis.
Even the original header is in the amavis format:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
probably they should not be doing that. as a packager, I fix bugs
(and file upstream bug reports), but it's usually linuxy
nonportability things that are clearly bugs (test ==, hardcoded lists
of accepted
Am 2024-05-12 01:08, schrieb jdow:
Methinks this is a perfect example of "one man's spam is another man's
ham." Or in my case, "A woman's spam is often a man's ham."
I like spam when it's well designed. That's why I no longer reject it on
my newly set up mail server. I just want them all to
On 20240511 14:56:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thomas Barth writes:
Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain
that they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments
of scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they
Am 2024-05-11 23:49, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
The value 6.31 does not even appear in the spamassassin source
package.
Sorry, the values are overwritten via the Amavis defaults.
cat /etc/debian_version
10.13
egrep -nri "sa_tag_level_deflt|sa_kill_level_deflt" /etc
Thomas Barth writes:
> Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
>> I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain
>> that they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments
>> of scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obviously)
>> adjusting that
On 2024-05-11 20:26:59 +0200, Thomas Barth wrote:
> Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
[...]
> > > found in
> > >
> > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
> > > tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
> > > DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole:
I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain that
they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments of
scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obviously) adjusting
that threshold daily based on current scores.
On 2024-05-11 at 14:26:59 UTC-0400 (Sat, 11 May 2024 20:26:59 +0200)
Thomas Barth
is rumored to have said:
Hello
Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 +
Hello
Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK +
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1)
score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1
found in
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908
Can I just take the names of the rules?
e.g. at least two checks should fire:
meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK +
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1)
score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1
found in
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
Hi guys,
thank you all for your advice!
Am 2024-05-10 22:39, schrieb Bowie Bailey:
The rules with the low scores are not intended to contribute to the
spam score for the email. They only have a defined score at all
because if the score is 0, SA will not run the rule.
It works like this:
On 5/10/2024 2:57 AM, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat):
Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They
can be used in metas in conjunction with
number.
Clarifying; You can change any score yourself on your own system locally if you
like, but to make no rule ever score 0.001 you'd need to fix the scores for all
low-score rules every time that you run sa-update. As John Hardin says, we will
not be changing the default to 0.1 in the rules di
On 2024-05-10 at 11:00:45 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT))
John Hardin
is rumored to have said:
> Note that poorly-performing rules may get a score that looks informational,
> but that may change over time based on the corpora.
IOW: rules that in themselves are not good enough
On 2024-05-09 at 18:19:14 UTC-0400 (Thu, 9 May 2024 15:19:14 -0700)
jdow
is rumored to have said:
> On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote:
>> Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
>>> Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
>>> used in metas in
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Thomas Barth wrote:
So now I repeat my question: is it possible to increase the minimum
value to 0.1 by default?
Not really.
The score for a rule is either a fixed value assigned by the rule
developer or a dynamic value calculated by masscheck nightly. There isn't
a
On 20240509 23:57:12, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat):
Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with
On 09.05.24 20:41, Thomas Barth wrote:
I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless
value of 0.001 is assigned.
Those rules may be tested in the present.
They also may be informative, e.g. DMARC_MISSING or SPF_PASS
rules with score 0 are not used so using 0 is not
Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat):
Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They
can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help
determine ham or
On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or
spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the
Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton:
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can
be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine
ham or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign
is not present. A small score
Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be
used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or
spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign is not
present. A small score indicates that the rule did hit, so the sign it is
Hello,
I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless
value of 0.001 is assigned. The total score could be much higher. Do I
have to define all the checks myself with a desired value?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
28 matches
Mail list logo
