I have noticed that several spams are getting through because they have
entries in the Auto White List, sometimes with very large numbers.
Here is a sample header from a message not flagged as spam:
Return-Path:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from mailrelay03.walmart.com (161.170.254.40) by
Gary G. Taylor wrote:
And here is a header from a beliefnet (gag) message SA caught:
snip
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP,
HTML_80_90,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY
autolearn=no version=3.0.4
snip
How the
OK here goes, my first post to this list. I have an issue with Spamassassin not
reading / using the white list.
The setup is a standalone PC running Guinevere to filter spam and viruses for a
GroupWise system. The OS is Win2k fully service packed. Perl is ActivePerl
5.8.8.816. Spamassassin is
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 12:04:29AM -0600, Kenneth Olsen wrote:
The local.cf is set to add *SPAM ** to the subject line. No changes
to the subject line.
Next I'm thing the white list and / or black list entries are incorrect and
the system is not reading past a point. Get the virgin
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:04:12PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Ollie, Something isn't adding up in a big way. Have you run spamassassin
--lint lately? Perhaps SA is getting heavily confused.
Indeed you are right about things not adding up.
Is there any chance you could re-run the message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ollie Acheson writes:
The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a result
of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
information in From:
what about the info in Return-Path:?
Spamassassin
At 07:26 PM 1/11/2005, Ollie Acheson wrote:
The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a result
of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
information in From:
1) you checked your user_prefs (hopefully not user.prefs) did you check the
At 07:42 PM 1/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
Ollie Acheson writes:
The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a
result
of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
information in From:
what about the info in Return-Path:?
Justin.. The
Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
MTA; The critical headers are:
Received: from 61.32.186.51 by kukla (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED],
uid
71) with qmail-scanner-1.24
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:54:56PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 07:26 PM 1/11/2005, Ollie Acheson wrote:
The message below passed through spamassassin with a -93.1 score as a
result
of a -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST, but my user.prefs has nothing resembling the
information in From:
1) you
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:46:58PM -0800, List Mail User wrote:
Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
MTA; The critical headers are:
Received: from 61.32.186.51 by kukla
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 11 18:23:25 2005
...
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:46:58PM -0800, List Mail User wrote:
Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
MTA; The critical
At 08:46 PM 1/11/2005, List Mail User wrote:
Every one seem to be missing the forged HELO which (incorrectly) used
the IP address of the receiving machine. This seems to have fooled both your
MTA; The critical headers are:
Received: from 61.32.186.51 by kukla (envelope-from
[EMAIL
13 matches
Mail list logo
