RE: Tons of spam getting through

2014-08-12 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote: They may take a couple of different forms depending on how SA is hooked into your mail infrastructure. Basic SA headers start with "X-Spam", like X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Report. If you're using Amavis, then there would be some Amavis headers. (Note

Re: Tons of spam getting through

2014-08-12 Thread Karl Johnson
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Greg Ledford wrote: > > It should just be called by Amavis directly. Sometimes it scans and > sometimes it doesn't. I just found another obvious piece of email that SA > and Amavis scanned and missed. I tried to attach the headers but they are > so blatant that th

RE: Tons of spam getting through

2014-08-12 Thread Greg Ledford
>They may take a couple of different forms depending on how SA is hooked into >your mail infrastructure. >Basic SA headers start with "X-Spam", like X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Report. >If you're using Amavis, then there would be some Amavis headers. (Note that >the mention of Amavis in the Receiv

RE: Tons of spam getting through

2014-08-12 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote: Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I know I missed something somewhere. Thanks. Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by S

RE: Tons of spam getting through

2014-08-12 Thread Greg Ledford
>> Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of >> very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I >> know I missed something somewhere. Thanks. >Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by SA. >Do messages that SA *does* p

Re: Tons of spam getting through

2014-08-12 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Greg Ledford wrote: Can someone tell me why Spamassassin/Amavis are missing these types of very obvious emails? I'm still trying to figure all of this out and I know I missed something somewhere. Thanks. Those headers don't seem to claim that message was even scanned by S