swapna ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But i am getting information from our clients that they are getting
> spam mails - that means few mails are not being filtered by
> spamc/spamd.
The correct response here is to tell your clients that there is no such
thing as a 100% spam detecting solution. What they are seeing is the
tiny 1% of spam that fails to be detected.
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=4.0
> tests=INVALID_MSGID,NO_REAL_NAME,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,TONER,
> USER_AGENT_OE
> version=2.41
In this case I suspect that the score for USER_AGENT_OE is a strong
negative score. The message can thus forge itself so that it forces
this rule to trigger, and the spam avoids detection.
Run the message through "spamassassin -t" to see the report, and see if
this USER_AGENT_OE rule is causing you problems.
If it is, insert this statement
score USER_AGENT_OE 0.0
into your local.cf file.
Performing this sort of analysis of occasional messages can improve
your SA instance without the need to go through an upgrade procedure.
However, if you can upgrade, you will find that these "highly negative
but easily forgeable" rules have been severely cut back in later
versions, so you won't need to do that yourself.
It's also possible that you are not using DNS tests. These tests can
improve SA's ability to detect spam.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fuzzy Fox) || "Good judgment comes from experience.
sometimes known as David DeSimone || Experience comes from bad judgment."
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
