Ok this is an interesting followup. Since I *know* that the gr_domain.cf
file is being read (I needed to change the '15' scores in there to 1.5 to
have a shot at receiving mail from providers like Mailchimp and Constant
Contact) I added the
score HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST 10
To *that* file, recompil
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Chuck McManis wrote:
Hi,
I restart spamd everytime I change local.cf and unfortunately John changing
the value as you've suggested and as I mentioned I had already tried,
doesn't actually change the score it assigns. Still trying to figure this
out.
...whoops, I didn't cat
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:52 AM RW wrote:
> Are you sure that you are actually using spamd? You wouldn't be the
> first to run an unnecessary spamd instance while the actual
> classifications are done in a different daemon, such as amavisd, using
> the spamassassin libraries.
>
That is a fair que
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:11:17 -0700
Chuck McManis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I restart spamd everytime I change local.cf and unfortunately John
> changing the value as you've suggested and as I mentioned I had
> already tried, doesn't actually change the score it assigns. Still
> trying to figure this out.
Hi,
I restart spamd everytime I change local.cf and unfortunately John changing
the value as you've suggested and as I mentioned I had already tried,
doesn't actually change the score it assigns. Still trying to figure this
out.
--Chuck
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:33 AM Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
I think he might also need to restart spamd/amavisd/whatever to have the
local.cf change take place.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
VP Fundraising, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM John H
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Chuck McManis wrote:
I have been trying to tune scores to achieve better matches with spam that
is getting through. And one test which shows up is HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST
which is being scored for 0. Doing a scan of my incoming mail flow this is
a huge signal, perhaps even a d
Rick Zeman wrote:
> Does this score:
>
> 0.001 BAYES_50Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
>
> seem to be rather low for something with a 50% probablity of being spam?
>
No, as it has a 50% probability of being nonspam too.
50% is the "exactly undecided" mark.
Rick Zeman schrieb:
Does this score:
0.001 BAYES_50Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
seem to be rather low for something with a 50% probablity of being spam?
SA 3.2.1 run within Maia with autolearning on.
Tnx
BAYES_50 means that bayes thinks that its 50% chance to be ham a
On 8/14/2007 3:49 PM, Rick Zeman wrote:
Does this score:
0.001 BAYES_50Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
seem to be rather low for something with a 50% probablity of being spam?
Anything higher would seem to be a little high for something with a 50%
probability of being ham.
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got the following in a message from our list management software:
>
> *X-Spam-Status: * Yes, hits=9.7 tagged_above=0.0 required=6.3
> tests=AWL, BAYES_20, NO_RELAYS
> *X-Spam-Level: * *
> *X-Spam-Flag: * YES
>
> Basic configuration:
> Debian Sarge
> Postfix
11 matches
Mail list logo
