Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-30 Thread Computer Bob
Thank you, Yes,  DCC Razor and Pyzor are installed and running. I will look into your other suggestions and let you know. On 1/30/18 1:37 PM, David Jones wrote: On 01/30/2018 11:47 AM, Computer Bob wrote: Also: I modified the following SA local.cf items:

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-30 Thread David Jones
On 01/30/2018 11:47 AM, Computer Bob wrote: Also: I modified the following SA local.cf items: --- #   Add *SPAM* to the Subject header of spam e-mails #  rewrite_header Subject

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-30 Thread Computer Bob
Also: I modified the following SA local.cf items: --- #   Add *SPAM* to the Subject header of spam e-mails #  rewrite_header Subject *SPAM*   < Uncommented #   Use Bayesian

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-30 Thread Computer Bob
Follow-up, I did a dist-upgrade to Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and the process whacked the SA bad. Removal and purging of SA was necessary and a fresh reinstall brought it back. It is currently "factory fresh". Still my problems persist, I am pursuing this via the Amavis mail list as command line calls

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-28 Thread Daniele Duca
On 27/01/2018 19:29, Ralph Seichter wrote: I trust you are aware that you actually penalise senders which pass the SPF check if you use a greater-than-zero score? Minus signs matter. ;-) Sure it's a "penalization", but of an order of magnitude so little that a minus, albeit more logically

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-27 Thread Benny Pedersen
Daniele Duca skrev den 2018-01-27 11:35: You are spot on, spammers are much more competent in setting up spf/dkim than most of legit mail administrators. sadly true I personally score spf/dkim that passes at 0 and only penalize the fails score 0 is disable tag if it littery 0 i just

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-27 Thread Ralph Seichter
On 27.01.18 16:32, Daniele Duca wrote: > > score SPF_PASS -0.001 > > score SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 > > I know, I meant to write that I score them at 0.001 (no minus sign in > my case) but I'm lazy :) I trust you are aware that you actually penalise senders which pass the SPF check if you use a

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-27 Thread Daniele Duca
On 27/01/2018 14:01, David Jones wrote: If you set those to 0, then you could be disabling many other helpful meta rules that use them.  It is recommended to set them to a very small non-zero number as others have said: score SPF_PASS -0.001 score SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 I know, I meant to

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-27 Thread David Jones
On 01/27/2018 04:35 AM, Daniele Duca wrote: On 26/01/2018 23:54, David B Funk wrote: Regardless, giving -1 score for SPF_PASS and another -1 for SPF_HELO_PASS is nontrivial DainBRamage. It's trivial for a spammer to set up SPF on a throw-away domain and thus waltz thru that kind of

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-27 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 26/01/2018 23:54, David B Funk wrote: Regardless, giving -1 score for SPF_PASS and another -1 for SPF_HELO_PASS is nontrivial DainBRamage. It's trivial for a spammer to set up SPF on a throw-away domain and thus waltz thru that kind of filtering. On 27.01.18 11:35, Daniele Duca wrote:

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-27 Thread Daniele Duca
On 26/01/2018 23:54, David B Funk wrote: Regardless, giving -1 score for SPF_PASS and another -1 for SPF_HELO_PASS is nontrivial DainBRamage. It's trivial for a spammer to set up SPF on a throw-away domain and thus waltz thru that kind of filtering. You are spot on, spammers are much

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-27 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 26.01.18 14:39, b...@inter-control.com wrote: I have an issue with my setup somehow and it may be in amavis-new, most spam gets detected and delt with, some gets through and the scoring seems odd. The headers that get through are usually along the lines of: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score:

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread Bill Cole
On 26 Jan 2018, at 17:47 (-0500), Computer Bob wrote: My understanding is that spamassassin is configured for razor and uribl. amavisd-new is configured to call spamassassin so is spamassassin not doing the sub calls ? Not exactly. The command-line 'spamassassin' script is written in Perl

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread David B Funk
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote: Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on     M1-2.dettenwanger.inter-control.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level:

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread Computer Bob
My understanding is that spamassassin is configured for razor and uribl. amavisd-new is configured to call spamassassin so is spamassassin not doing the sub calls ? I see no docs on configuring razor directly in amavis. If you could tell me what to look for it would be appreciated. On 1/26/18

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread Computer Bob
Ok, I will look now, what am I looking for ? On 1/26/18 4:20 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote: Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on     M1-2.dettenwanger.inter-control.com

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread Computer Bob
I did not think so, but will check another day. 15 hours is enough for today. On 1/26/18 4:20 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote: Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on    

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread John Hardin
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote: Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on     M1-2.dettenwanger.inter-control.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=23.0

Re: Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread David Jones
On 01/26/2018 02:39 PM, b...@inter-control.com wrote: Greetings to all, I have an issue with my setup somehow and it may be in amavis-new, most spam gets detected and delt with, some gets through and the scoring seems odd. The headers that get through are usually along the lines of:

Scoring Issues

2018-01-26 Thread b...@inter-control.com
Greetings to all, I have an issue with my setup somehow and it may be in amavis-new, most spam gets detected and delt with, some gets through and the scoring seems odd. The headers that get through are usually along the lines of: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level:

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-20 Thread RW
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:08:54 +0200 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > * David Jones : > > > Are you hitting the URIBL_BLOCKED rule? If so, please follow the > > link in that reddit article to get rid of that rule hit. This is > > very important. > > Yes, but that's not his problem --

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-20 Thread Ralf Hildebrandt
* David Jones : > Are you hitting the URIBL_BLOCKED rule? If so, please follow the > link in that reddit article to get rid of that rule hit. This is very > important. Yes, but that's not his problem -- since the URIBL query fails in both delivery AND his test. The actual

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-20 Thread Ralf Hildebrandt
* W B : > Hey all! I'm having issues with SpamAssassin; it's assigning emails scores > that are way lower than it should. In addition, the scores it's assigning as > emails come in are different from the results of running SpamAssassin -t on > that same email after the

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-19 Thread W B
I actually had no idea SpamAssassin could do bayesian training - I'm an idiot. Lol. Thank you for pointing that out to me! On 4/19/2017 2:56 PM, RW wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:36:24 -0400 W B wrote: Hey all! I'm having issues with SpamAssassin; it's assigning emails scores that are way

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-19 Thread RW
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:54:03 -0400 W B wrote: > You guys are all correct. Somehow I've been overlooking that message > - I must have misread something. Either way, thank you so much for > the help; I've set up unbound, so hopefully that should solve the > issue. It probably wont. It's a

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-19 Thread RW
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:36:24 -0400 W B wrote: > Hey all! I'm having issues with SpamAssassin; it's assigning emails > scores that are way lower than it should. In addition, the scores > it's assigning as emails come in are different from the results of > running SpamAssassin -t on that same

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-19 Thread W B
wil...@wilsonbiggs.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:36 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: SpamAssassin scoring issues Hey all! I'm having issues with SpamAssassin; it's assigning emails scores that are way lower than it should. In addition, the scores it's assigning as email

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-19 Thread David Jones
>From: W B <wil...@wilsonbiggs.com> >Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:36 PM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: SpamAssassin scoring issues   >Hey all! I'm having issues with SpamAssassin; it's assigning emails >scores that are way lower than it should. In a

Re: SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-19 Thread Benny Pedersen
W B skrev den 2017-04-19 20:36: https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/660n2w/spamassassin_scores_are_oddly_low_different_from/ http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block have you readed this and solved it ?

SpamAssassin scoring issues

2017-04-19 Thread W B
Hey all! I'm having issues with SpamAssassin; it's assigning emails scores that are way lower than it should. In addition, the scores it's assigning as emails come in are different from the results of running SpamAssassin -t on that same email after the fact. I'd like to avoid posting too