On 04.08.09 16:39, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
And it seems AWL really is the problem. Here are the relevant passages from
another Email, which only got enough points to be identified as Spam because
it was both in DCC and Razor.
5.0 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
scores
for RAZOR_CHECK etc. ?
Bye
Stefan
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Network-Tests---Rule-Files-Directories-tp24750149p24818157.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 18:15 -0700, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
Evidence that it's not working? Show us some SA headers. In this case, a
spam sample that triggered DCC, cause the Report header does show the
rule's score.
Hmm, I wasn't clear enough. :) I meant an identified spam, where
this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Network-Tests---Rule-Files-Directories-tp24750149p24774136.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Network-Tests---Rule-Files-Directories-tp24750149p24774184.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 19:30 -0700, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
Hello
A Nabble user with a name. Hooray! :)
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
| spamassassin
I suggest running the spamd daemon, and then change that to call spamc
rather than plain spamassassin. That eliminates the start-up penalty for
the old files in
/usr/share/spamassassin or are they still needed? Why does
SpamAssassin place the updates rules in a different directoy than the
one in which the original rules are installed?
Bye
Stefan
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Network-Tests---Rule-Files-Directories
