On 04.06.16 09:15, Robert Chalmers wrote:
I’m trying to discover why T_SPF_TEMPERROR and the other below it are not
scoring higher even though they are actually failing?
because they can be failing because of (temporary) problems on either side
and not gettin the results does not mean it should
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:15:55 +0100
Robert Chalmers wrote:
> I’m trying to discover why T_SPF_TEMPERROR and the other below it are
> not scoring higher even though they are actually failing?
> > autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report:
> > * 0.0 T_SPF_TEMPERROR SPF: te
Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Robert Chalmers:
I’m trying to discover why T_SPF_TEMPERROR and the other below it are
not scoring higher even though they are actually failing?
because that's the purpose of a testing rule and because it does you a
favour *not* to score any sort of TEMPERROR
I’m trying to discover why T_SPF_TEMPERROR and the other below it are not
scoring higher even though they are actually failing?
This is the part from a spam message that is sneaking through.
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on zeus.localhost
> X-Spam-Level: *
> X-Spam-S
