Drew Burchett wrote:
Do you have some example headers?
This is a legitimate email, but it got flagged as USER_IN_WHITELIST
while CNN is not listed in my whitelist:
You didn't include the envelope from address in any of your examples.
Daryl
that is getting through. It should have failed.
Why should it have failed?
WHITELIST_FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* You have whitelisted all mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED].
* The mail is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] according to the SMTP envelope.
= You have whitelisted
On Monday 22 January 2007 12:51, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
that is getting through. It should have failed.
Why should it have failed?
WHITELIST_FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* You have whitelisted all mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED].
* The mail is from [EMAIL
Sherman Lilly wrote:
[snip]
I was looking on the net and I came across a plugin on spamassassin I don't
think i have loaded. Will the SPF plugin help with this problem?
No, I think the default score is 0.0, and it's only for positive id (thus I add
points, not subtract).
Botnet plugin
, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK=1,
RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946, RCVD_IN_SBL_XBL=1.5, RCVD_IN_SORBS=1,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.897, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=0.75,
SARE_GIF_STOX=1.66, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
i can't think
, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
i can't think of anything at this point aside from getting rid of the
old whitelist and starting a new one.
Hi Stas,
I am betting that the envelope-sender is the user that is in the whitelist
and you are looking
, 29 Nov 2006 19:08:40 +0800
and i don't see the envelope-from field at all in the header
i can post the full header if that would help
Original Message
Subject: Re:spam is marked as user_in_whitelist
From: Greg Skouby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: 11
Nick Rout wrote:
So I take it USER_IN_WHITELIST also checks Return-Path? I wonder where
Return-Path is being set? Is it likely to be set by the spammer? Or is
my system adding it in somewhere (probably in error).
Return-Path is usually added by the receiving system, and contains the
envelope
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:49:19 -0700
Kelson wrote:
Nick Rout wrote:
So I take it USER_IN_WHITELIST also checks Return-Path? I wonder where
Return-Path is being set? Is it likely to be set by the spammer? Or is
my system adding it in somewhere (probably in error).
Return-Path is usually
Hi, I am new to this list and certainly not a SA expert, however I have
moderate experience in general linux issues and mailer issues.
I am getting a series of messages allowed through on the basis of
USER_IN_WHITELIST. I have searched the mailing list archive and pored
over my setup files
Nick Rout wrote:
Hi, I am new to this list and certainly not a SA expert, however I have
moderate experience in general linux issues and mailer issues.
I am getting a series of messages allowed through on the basis of
USER_IN_WHITELIST. I have searched the mailing list archive and pored
over my
Nick Rout wrote:
Hi, I am new to this list and certainly not a SA expert, however I have
moderate experience in general linux issues and mailer issues.
I am getting a series of messages allowed through on the basis of
USER_IN_WHITELIST. I have searched the mailing list archive and pored
over my
,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LENGTH,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
MSGID_SPAM_LETTERS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.1.3-gr0
The return-path looks a little iffy to me, have you white listed
yourself or your domain ? (hint: not a good idea).
Regards,
Rick
Thanks, quick reply! (Thanks too Daryl, also quick
Nick Rout wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:58:59 -0400
Thanks, quick reply! (Thanks too Daryl, also quick)
So I take it USER_IN_WHITELIST also checks Return-Path? I wonder where
Return-Path is being set? Is it likely to be set by the spammer? Or is
my system adding it in somewhere (probably
,
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LENGTH,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
MSGID_SPAM_LETTERS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.1.3-gr0
The return-path looks a little iffy to me, have you white listed
yourself or your domain ? (hint: not a good idea).
Regards,
Rick
Thanks, quick reply! (Thanks too
I've been running Spamassassin now for a couple of years and it has been a
great help. Recently though, I've begun coming across some messages that
are blatantly spam, but are being tagged as user_in_whitelist and let
through.
I understand the whitelist syntax pretty well and can guarantee
Brian S. Powell wrote:
Could this have something to do with the fact that these seem to all be
getting through via some MailMan mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses?
I have a system-wide entry of:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] osc.edu
It may be the Sender: header that is
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your
trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well.
I have been running this software for two years, have read through the docs
on countless ocassions, and never discovered the
Brian S. Powell wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your
trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well.
I have been running this software for two years, have read through
the docs on countless ocassions, and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian S. Powell wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your
trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well.
I have been running this software for two years, have read through
the docs on
jdow wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part
of the installation process? This is probably the single most common
misconfiguration.
The first time the question might be asked is well into the install
process.
How do you
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part
of the installation process? This is probably the single most common
misconfiguration.
The first time the question might be asked is well into the install
I'm trying to debug why a specific domain is not triggering
USER_IN_WHITELIST even though the domain is listed in sa-mimedefang as
whitelist_from *@domain.com.
White listing is working in general. What conditions does
USER_IN_WHITELIST look for? For example, is it just the From: header
Johnson, Robert F wrote:
I'm trying to debug why a specific domain is not triggering
USER_IN_WHITELIST even though the domain is listed in sa-mimedefang as
whitelist_from*@domain.com.
White listing is working in general. What conditions does
USER_IN_WHITELIST look
,
FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2,HTML_80_90,
HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL,URIBL_AB_SURBL,
URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL,USER_IN_WHITELIST
At 02:20 PM 1/5/2005, Quinn Comendant wrote:
1. USER_IN_WHITELIST is causing the low score. User has no whitelist, in
fact has no custom user settings whatsoever.
Are you sure the message got processed as that user?
Question: Therefore the site-wide shared auto-whitelist.db is causing
this flag
3.0.2 but the X-Spam-Status
line below says otherwise (3.0.1). That causes me to suspect any
other information given, but we'll see what there is to work with.
USER_IN_WHITELIST has nothing to do with auto whitelist, or bayes so
just ignore that.
Also, the required score of 4.0 seems a bit odd
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:39:57PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
If the lockfile exists, some SA process is currently writing the DB, and
autolearning cannot occur. Since autolearning isn't a critical operation,
SA skips autolearning,
Does this trigger autolearn=unavailable, which I see from
At 03:10 PM 1/5/2005, Rainer Sokoll wrote:
If the lockfile exists, some SA process is currently writing the DB, and
autolearning cannot occur. Since autolearning isn't a critical operation,
SA skips autolearning,
Does this trigger autolearn=unavailable, which I see from time to time
in the
101 - 129 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
