On Nov 11, 2018, at 13.35, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> listsb skrev den 2018-11-11 19:20:
>
>> thanks, agreed. is continuation of this discussion ok here? or
>> should i take to the amavis list?
>
> its important that networks ip ranges is equal in all software used
>
> its not done automatic
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
what am i misunderstanding?
Is there some possibility that you're stripping external Received headers?
(grasping at straws here)
Heh. Ignore that. I have *got* to learn to catch up *before* replying to
stuff...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
On Nov 10, 2018, at 21.01, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
listsb skrev den 2018-11-11 19:20:
thanks, agreed. is continuation of this discussion ok here? or
should i take to the amavis list?
its important that networks ip ranges is equal in all software used
its not done automatic
ALL_TRUSTED is not a amavis problem to solve
so keep it here,
>On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
>>i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i
have the following:
>>
>>>grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
On Nov 11, 2018, at 13.18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has
come from. i have the
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 12.23, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
>> hi-
>>
>> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
>> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
>> from. i have the
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 12.05, RW wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:35:18 -0500
> listsb wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 11, 2018, at 09.01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 06:43:27PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
> >>i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
> >>ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
> >>from. i
Amavisd does not use spamassassin *networks settings
Orignation bug is not spamassassin problem
Benny
On 11. november 2018 18.24.05 Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
hi-
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
ALL_TRUSTED
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
>grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:04:42PM -0500, listsb wrote:
> hi-
>
> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
> from. i have the following:
>
> >grep -riF 'internal_networks'
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 09.01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote:
>> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
>> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
>> from. i have the following:
>>
>>> grep -riF
On 10.11.18 20:04, listsb wrote:
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
On Nov 10, 2018, at 21.01, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
>
>> hi-
>>
>> i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the
>> ALL_TRUSTED test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come
>> from. i have the following:
>>
>>> grep
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, listsb wrote:
hi-
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
hi-
i've just noticed that every mail received seems to be hitting the ALL_TRUSTED
test [ALL_TRUSTED=-1], regardless of where the message has come from. i have
the following:
>grep -riF 'internal_networks' /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassassin/99_local-config.cf:internal_networks
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I've spent
more than an hour on googling and rtfm but couldn't figure it
out. Also, grep does
On 11/12/2015 12:31 PM, Christian Jaeger wrote:
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I've spent
more than an hour on googling and rtfm
On 2015-11-12 08:20, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 11/12/2015 6:31 AM, Christian Jaeger wrote:
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I've spent
On 11/12/2015 6:31 AM, Christian Jaeger wrote:
Hi
I'm seeing X-Spam-Status headers from some other installation come
with =$x appended to the individual matches, which evidently helps
figuring out why a mail is being classified the way it is. I've spent
more than an hour on googling and rtfm
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
That's an SA directive. It says if the message scores spammy,
prepend '[SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]' to the Subject header.
Ah. Missing some messages here.
It does appear that sa is the culprit but why it's
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
That's an SA directive. It says if the message scores spammy,
prepend '[SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]' to the Subject header.
Ah. Missing some messages here.
It does appear
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
That's an SA directive. It says if the message scores spammy,
prepend '[SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]' to the Subject header.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
It does appear that sa is the culprit but why it's doing it is not
evident. There's still not enough data. Perhaps turning up debugging
would be helpful?
The apparent
, the message previously classified spam does not
exceed the threshold. Thus the X-Spam-Status of no, overriding the
previous Status header which is being ignored by SA anyway.
Result: Subject header rewritten by SA, despite final (delivery time)
spam status of no. This thread's Subject.
--
char *t
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9P2o1ZZ026032
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:06:00 -0700
Cathryn Mataga cath...@junglevision.com wrote:
Okay, here's another header.Shows X-Xpam-Status as no.
In local.cf I changed to this, just to be sure.
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]
Not familiar with how sendmail rewrites
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, jdebert wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:06:00 -0700
Cathryn Mataga cath...@junglevision.com wrote:
Okay, here's another header.Shows X-Xpam-Status as no.
In local.cf I changed to this, just to be sure.
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK]
Not
) on
ecuador.junglevision.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id
) on
ecuador.junglevision.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Subject: [SPAM][JUNGLEVISION SPAM CHECK] Confirmation of Order Number
684588 * Please Do Not Reply To This Email
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9P2o1ZZ026032
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
verify=NO) for
On 10/25/2014 9:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
Received: from ecuador.junglevision.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
ecuador.junglevision.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9P2o1ZZ026032
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:13:49 +0100
Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5
tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
EMAIL_URI_PHISH
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:39:57 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 17.10.14 10:08, jdebert wrote:
Will URIBL_BLOCKED cause [SPAM] to be inserted into Subject?
no, it will more likely cause [SPAM] _not_ to be inserted, because it
wouldn't be detected.
Good. Had me worried
On 10/20/14, 9:46 AM, jdebert wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:39:57 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 17.10.14 10:08, jdebert wrote:
Will URIBL_BLOCKED cause [SPAM] to be inserted into Subject?
no, it will more likely cause [SPAM] _not_ to be inserted, because it
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_DKIM_INVALID,
URIBL_BLOCKED
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belonging to your ISP
or Google, that explains why the blacklists think you exceeded the free
limit: they
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
On 10/17/14, 9:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one belonging to your ISP
or Google, that explains why the
Am 17.10.2014 um 18:34 schrieb Cathryn Mataga:
On 10/17/14, 9:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10/17/14, 4:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
URIBL_BLOCKED usually means that you've exceeded the daily free use
limit on URIBL queries.
What DNS server are you using? If its a public one
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 09:34 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
I should check. I do well less than 100 legitimate emails a day, but I
think I might be pulling in thousand(s)+ of spam.
1) check that your DNS isn't forwarding requests to another DNS.
Its the 'forward' statement(s) in your DNS
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:13:49 +0100
Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 22:37 -0700, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5
tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
EMAIL_URI_PHISH
3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
ecuador.junglevision.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
EMAIL_URI_PHISH,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_DKIM_INVALID,
URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from
???
Are you using imap to fetch your mail?
Thanks guys. Yes I am using imap. What I have is a .procmailrc that
forwards to meganspam. That's how this email got to meganspam. Is
spamassasin is running twice? Once going to megan@ and then at
meganspam@.
The score is only 1.9, 3.5 required. What's going on here?
From me...@ecuador.junglevision.com Mon Oct 13 08:38:09 2014
Return-Path: me...@ecuador.junglevision.com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
ecuador.junglevision.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status
Am 29.08.2014 um 04:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
look at the attached zp-archive and both messages
produced with the same content before you pretend
others lying damned - to make it easier i even
added a config-diff
But no
Am 29.08.2014 um 04:26 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
look at the attached zp-archive [...]
Since I already had a closer look at the contents including your local
cf, and I am here to offer help and didn't mean no harm, some comments
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 12:02 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.08.2014 um 04:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
Now, moving forward: I've had a look at the message diffs. Quite
interesting, and I honestly want to figure out what's happening.
it looks really like spamass-milter is responsible
Am 30.08.2014 um 00:35 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 12:02 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.08.2014 um 04:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
Now, moving forward: I've had a look at the message diffs. Quite
interesting, and I honestly want to figure out what's happening.
Am 25.08.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Reindl Harald:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
spamassassin-3.4.0-7.fc20.x86_64
spamass-milter-0.3.2-11.fc20.x86_64
spamass-milter -p
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 00:30 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
besides the permissions problem after the nightly sa-update the reason
was simply clear_headers without add_header spam Flag _YESNO which
is entirely unexpected behavior
No, that is not the cause.
$ echo -e Subject: Foo\n |
Am 29.08.2014 um 01:20 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 00:30 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
besides the permissions problem after the nightly sa-update the reason
was simply clear_headers without add_header spam Flag _YESNO which
is entirely unexpected behavior
No, that is
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 01:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.08.2014 um 01:20 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 00:30 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
besides the permissions problem after the nightly sa-update the reason
was simply clear_headers without add_header spam Flag
Am 29.08.2014 um 02:15 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 29.08.2014 um 02:01 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 01:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Besides, your own reply to my first post to this thread on Mon also
shows this claim to be false. The output of the command I asked you to
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Reindl Harald:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
spamassassin-3.4.0-7.fc20.x86_64
spamass-milter
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
look at the attached zp-archive and both messages
produced with the same content before you pretend
others lying damned - to make it easier i even
added a config-diff
But no message diff. ;)
and now what?
maybe you should accept
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
look at the attached zp-archive [...]
Since I already had a closer look at the contents including your local
cf, and I am here to offer help and didn't mean no harm, some comments
regarding the SA config.
# resolves a bug with milter
Hi
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
spamassassin-3.4.0-7.fc20.x86_64
spamass-milter-0.3.2-11.fc20.x86_64
spamass-milter -p /run/spamass-milter/spamass-milter.sock -g sa-milt
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Hi
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
See
http://www.jigsawboys.com/2006/06/28/spamassassin-rewrite-subject-not-working/
Regards
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
See
http://www.jigsawboys.com/2006/06/28
On 8/25/2014 11:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
See
Am 25.08.2014 um 17:11 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 11:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging
On 8/25/2014 11:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 17:11 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 11:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 8/25/2014 5:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
See
http://www.jigsawboys.com/2006/06/28/spamassassin-rewrite-subject-not-working/
earn 0
If you read the post I sent, you would have noted you
Harald wrote:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
See
http://www.jigsawboys.com/2006/06/28/spamassassin-rewrite-subject-not
-working/
earn 0
If you read
Am 25.08.2014 um 17:29 schrieb Antony Stone:
Post follow-ups on an appropriate support forum. This is not it.
I think you're being unfairly rude to the original poster here.
His problem is not specific to spamass-milter (if it were, I would agree with
pointing him politely in the
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 11:37 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
What does this command return?
echo -e Subject: Foo\n | spamassassin --cf
Am 25.08.2014 um 18:00 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 11:37 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
header contains X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.5 required=5.0
but the subject does not get [SPAM] tagging with the config
below - not sure what i am missing
What does this command
@mail-gw:~]$ echo -e Subject: Foo\n | spamassassin
--cf=required_score 1
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.7 required=1.0 tests=MISSING_DATE,MISSING_FROM,
MISSING_HEADERS,MISSING_MID,NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE,NO_RECEIVED,NO_RELAYS
Subject: [SPAM] Foo
X-Spam-Prev-Subject: Foo
Exactly as expected
Am 25.08.2014 um 19:13 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 18:55 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 18:00 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.7 required=1.0 tests=MISSING_DATE,MISSING_FROM,
MISSING_HEADERS,MISSING_MID,NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 19:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 19:13 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
No tests at all. I doubt the milter generated all those missing headers
including From and Date, instead of a Received one only. So it seems the
restricted sa-milt user has no read
Am 25.08.2014 um 20:03 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 19:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 19:13 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
No tests at all. I doubt the milter generated all those missing headers
including From and Date, instead of a Received one only. So
I'm getting these messages, some of them real emails, that get marked
with [SPAM]
even though X-Spam-Status: comes up as No. I updated to the latest build on
Fedora though I think this has been going on awhile. It happens with
some email
accounts but not others.
From me
This is pretty common - enough that I'd appreciate it if you could provide
more information on the cause of your problem, and how you fix it, once you
do.
Yesterday in IRC:
09:40PM ke6i X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=2.0
tests=FROM_MISSP_REPLYTO, FROM_MISSP_URI,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP
Hello Cathryn,
Friday, September 21, 2012, 6:21:05 PM, you wrote:
CM I'm getting these messages, some of them real emails, that get marked
CM with [SPAM]
CM even though X-Spam-Status: comes up as No. I updated to the latest build on
CM Fedora though I think this has been going on awhile
snowweb pe...@snowweb.co.uk wrote:
It seems that if the sender is Exim always delivers it to the inbox,
regardless of the how it was classified. Apparently this is because
mailservers sending notification of undeliverable mail, identify
themselves in this way (for some reason which appears a
on senders.
Pete
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/X-Spam-Status%3A-Yes%2C-score%3D18.4---Still-delivered.-tp31591656p31651611.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8?
c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0;
}}}
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/X-Spam-Status%3A-Yes%2C-score%3D18.4---Still-delivered.-tp31591656p31608305.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin
-03-16) on s1.snowweb.info
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-ASN: AS24560 122.161.32.0/20
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,EMPTY_MESSAGE,
FH_FROMEML_NOTLD,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS,FROM_NO_USER,FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,
HELO_NO_DOMAIN
On 10.05.11 23:26, snowweb wrote:
I'm getting many spams in the last few days, with spam scores far above my
4.0 threshold, which are still being delivered.
delivered? SA doesn't care about delivery, only about detecting spam.
The delivery is up to your MTA, e.g. spamass-milter
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 23:26 -0700, snowweb wrote:
I'm getting many spams in the last few days, with spam scores far above my
4.0 threshold, which are still being delivered. Wondering if it's to do with
the fact that they all seem to have no sender.
Uhm, wait -- what else did you expect!?
SA is correctly assigning a high score to an email (Content analysis details:
(12.0 points, 3.5 required)) but the X-Spam-Status header reads: No,
score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_BASE64_TEXT,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,NO_RELAYS,T_HTML_ATTACH autolearn=unavailable
version=3.3.1... any hints
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, dannoz wrote:
SA is correctly assigning a high score to an email (Content analysis details:
(12.0 points, 3.5 required)) but the X-Spam-Status header reads: No,
score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_BASE64_TEXT,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,NO_RELAYS,T_HTML_ATTACH
.jidanni.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=1.9 tests=none autolearn=disabled
version=3.2.5-mon_sep__8_23_53_29_2008.jidanni2.jidanni.org
Yay, a 51 char long version string.
Indeed, I'd be annoyed (not frustrated, though) by that, too. However,
it's not the default. Not even close
Gentlemen, I am frustrated by the duplication of information in:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
3.2.5-mon_sep__8_23_53_29_2008.jidanni2.jidanni.org (2008-06-10) on
jidanni2.jidanni.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=1.9 tests=none autolearn=disabled
version
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentlemen, I am frustrated by the duplication of information in:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
3.2.5-mon_sep__8_23_53_29_2008.jidanni2.jidanni.org (2008-06-10) on
jidanni2.jidanni.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=1.9
Hi sm,
The startup parameters may be different. Verify what
spamass_milter_flags settings used in rc.conf to start the milter.
I'm in doubt we mean the same thing.
I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting
headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the
Hi Marianne,
At 10:33 26-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote:
I verified these settings, an it's not spamass-milter not rewriting
headers -- but it does not write *all* headers. IIRC, the X-Spam-Level
should appear in each message, regardless of it's spam or not. But the
only header I see is
:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on myhost
Huh? The only header is X-Spam-Checker-Version, but it does not
write a X-Spam-Status or X-Spam-Level header to my messages as I
can see in message source. Isn't that strange? Exactly the same setup
worked fine under
to add the headers as you can see from the above.
Huh? The only header is X-Spam-Checker-Version, but it does not
write a X-Spam-Status or X-Spam-Level header to my messages as I
can see in message source. Isn't that strange? Exactly the same setup
worked fine under a Debian Xen domU
Hi,
many thanks for your answer.
Find out which milter is being used and whether it can be configured to
add the headers you need.
the milter I'm using is spamass-milter-0.3.1 from pkgsrc, too.
I used it under Debian, and it did not need any further configuration.
Regards,
Marianne
--
Die
Hi Marianne,
At 12:34 25-03-2008, Marianne Spiller wrote:
the milter I'm using is spamass-milter-0.3.1 from pkgsrc, too.
This milter can use the message body returned by spamd, including the
rewritten headers.
I used it under Debian, and it did not need any further configuration.
The
I have recently upgraded to SA3.2 (via ISPConfig) and have several users
seeing messages come through without any SA processing. On my personal
account, I see 2-5 messages a day which don't have a X-Spam-Status and are
very obviously spam.
SA is called through PROCMAIL and I have confirmed
esposj schrieb:
I have recently upgraded to SA3.2 (via ISPConfig) and have several users
seeing messages come through without any SA processing. On my personal
account, I see 2-5 messages a day which don't have a X-Spam-Status and are
very obviously spam.
SA is called through PROCMAIL and I
this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Several-messages-a-day-are-not-getting-scanned-%28no-X-Spam-Status%29-tf4030196.html#a11448213
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ip guy wrote:
Hi all
Anyone know why see X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=? in the
email header after delivery and spam scanning ?
My local.cf http://local.cf file looks like this
required_score 8.0
report_safe 1
rewrite_header Subject *SPAM*
Do you use spamc
Maybe i wasn't clear. i guess it was the way i asked.
Anyone know why I'd keep seeing this in the mail herders of email scanner
for spam
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=?
My setup currently uses spamc v2.40 on hostA to forward to spamd v3.1.8 on
hostB
My local.cf on hostB is setup
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 02:45:54PM +1000, ip guy wrote:
Anyone know why I'd keep seeing this in the mail herders of email scanner
for spam
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=? required=?
Whatever you have calling SA is adding markup. SA won't ever put in question
marks. My guess is that it's
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
