On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
Yes. Hence my question about mail hitting URIBL_BLACK on the first run,
unlike that one example.
The point is, whether *no* mail hits URIBL_BLACK, or at least *some*
mail does. Do you get any URIBL_BLACK hits at all? Is
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Jeff Aitken wrote:
I'm thinking you're probably right that this is a timing issue. I just
checked another message that had different scoring results. The initial
message was received on 5/15 at 1156UTC and did not hit URIBL_BLACK. I
fed it to SA manually at 1203UTC and
Hello,
Apologies if this is a FAQ or old news, but I did a bit of searching
yesterday and didn't find an answer to this one.
I'm using SA (3.2.4) site-wide on a FreeBSD-6.3 box in conjunction with
postfix, using procmail as the LDA. I'm using spamd/spamc, so the individual
spamc processes are
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 14:19 +, Jeff Aitken wrote:
For example, a message that was just delivered to my inbox contained the
following report from SA:
X-Spam-Report:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.]
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
No DNSBLs in the original result... This *may* be due to the BLs
catching up, and the second run being done later. This specifically
seems to be the case for Razor (which hit in both run, just differently)
and likely for
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 16:20 +, Jeff Aitken wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
Do you see hits URIBL_BLACK hits in the incoming stream at all?
Not sure exactly what you're asking here... but I included the entire
X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Report
