On 8/12/2014 10:42 AM, matth wrote:
Oh, right, thanks. It is amavis. I did not realise it was triggering SA.
Thanks for the pointer.
Doing spam scanning with Amavis can be useful. It gives you the ability
to reject high-scoring spam, but you lose some of the per-user
customizations.
If you
Oh, right, thanks. It is amavis. I did not realise it was triggering SA.
Thanks for the pointer.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Spam-score-in-headers-does-not-match-the-Content-analysis-report-tp110896p110906.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin
On 8/12/2014 10:05 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*S
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers the score ap
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Hello All,
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers
Hello All,
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers the score appears as 0.001, message i
