Re: Custom rule based on AWL score

[SimpleRezo]

>So, to the OP: try the tagmatch plugin to look at where _AWLMEAN_ is 
>(e.g.) <= -1 and _AWLCOUNT_ is greater than (e.g.) 10 and that may get you 
>what you want for a meta to use with the rules you want to control.

Thank you Paul & John, it looks like I will be able to achieve what I want
with tagmatch & _AWL* tags !
Paul, will be awesome to be able to do gt/lt (of course for now I can deal
with regexp to achieve this)

--
SimpleRezo
https://www.simplerezo.com/




-
--
SimpleRezo
http://www.simplerezo.com/
--
View this message in context: 
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123131.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Custom rule based on AWL score

[simplerezo]

> it also helps frequent spammers known to spam to prevent false negative.

Absolutely.

> very unknown users can't by definition hit AWL.

That's why my wanted rule is score(AWL) > -1 : all users that have not yet
send enough not-spam mails can not, for example, send me invoices as zip
attachment (yes, there is some big company that are actually sending invoice
that way...).

I'm not a huge-fan of whitelist, because:
   - contrary of AWL (address + IP), it only rely on sending address... and
as everyone knows, that's definitely not something very trustable ;
   - this requires my users to configure this, and most of them are already
finding IT too much complicated :)

--
Clement
SimpleRezo
http://www.simplerezo.com/



--
View this message in context: 
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123102.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Custom rule based on AWL score

[simplerezo]

My understanding is that AWL is helping frequent senders who are known to not
send spam to "reduce" their spam score, preventing false positive. That's
exactly what I want to rely on for my rules: adding score for mail with
"invoice" pretention and an attachment but only for very unknown users (or
spammers).



--
View this message in context: 
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123091.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Custom rule based on AWL score

[simplerezo]

Because our users cannot easyly add all theirs contacts to whitelist.

AWL is a great feature, and it's working well: so it would be nice for us to
put some restrictives rules only active for "unknown" users (example:
"invoices" ...).



--
View this message in context: 
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087p123089.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Custom rule based on AWL score

[simplerezo]

Hi, 

Is it possible to write rule based on AWL score? 

We have some customs rules that we don't want to enable for "well-known"
contacts... 

I tried this: 
metaSR__AWL ( AWL <= -1 ) 
describeSR__AWL AWL is at least -1 
score   SR__AWL -0.01 

But it does not seems to work...



--
View this message in context: 
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Custom-rule-based-on-AWL-score-tp123087.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Problem with SPF plugin and MX2

[Support SimpleRezo]

You are totally right, fixed! Thank you!

2016-05-25 13:24 GMT+02:00 RW :

>
> It sounds like you haven't setup internal_networks and trusted_networks.
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath
>
>

Problem with SPF plugin and MX2

[Support SimpleRezo]

Hi,

We are expecting a problem when emails are coming from our MX2 with the SPF
plugin, because the SPF test is made on the last "Received" IP and not the
first one (as we can expect for a SPF test).

So if the domain is one of our domain, the result is always SPF_PASS when
the email arrived from MX2 (since the SPF rule is including "MX"), and when
it's not, the result is SPF_FAILED even if coming from a good IP (because
the test is made with our MX2 IP).

Does someone has already notice this? Can this be fixed by configuration?

Regards

Clement