Thanks, but no :-( this is the only location where the files exist. I did some searches with the 'find' command and the rule files only showed up in this one location.
I don't know.....Could amavis have something to do with this? I am out of ideas. If you care to share your rule files I would still like to run some diffs on them. Thanks again, --Ezsra --- Ryan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Meant to say that the results were the same as my > previous run, in that > I got the same score and hits pretty much: > > X-Spam-Report: > * -1.5 BAYES_01 BODY: Bayesian spam > probability is 1 to 10% > * [score: 0.0873] > * 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in > message > * 0.1 HTML_70_80 BODY: Message is 70% to > 80% HTML > * 0.3 DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN RBL: From: sender > listed in > dsn.rfc-ignorant.org > > > You might also check /usr/share/spamassassin, as I > thought that is the > default site rules directory, though it might be > different on various > platforms. > > Ryan Moore > ---------- > Perigee.net Corporation > 704-849-8355 (sales) > 704-849-8017 (tech) > www.perigee.net > > > > Ezsra McDonald wrote: > > When you say the results were the same do you mean > you had the same > > results as I did or the same a as you did before? > > > > Would you mind sending me a tar file of your > rules? I checked my system > > and the rules are located in > /usr/local/share/spamassassin and have > > yesterdays date. This is the date I upgraded. > > > > These are the rules I have in > /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf: > > > > # WHITE-LISTED SENDERS (the good guys): > > > > #whitelist_from *.good-domain.net # > This domain is safe > > #whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] # > These guys are ok > > #whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] # > He never spams us > > > > # WHITELIST HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR SECURITY REASONS > > > > # WHITE-LISTED RECEIVERS: > > # (Let ALL mail through to these recipients - no > scanning for SPAM): > > > > > > # BLACK-LISTED SENDERS (the bad guys): > > > > #blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > #blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > #blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] # nasty > outlaws > > #blacklist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] # we don't > want any of this > > stuff... > > > > # BLACKLIST HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR SECURITY REASONS > > > > # SCORE CHANGES (Don't mess with these unless you > KNOW what > > # you are doing! > > > > #score FORGED_HOTMAIL_RECD 5.50 > > #score WEB_BUGS 1.50 > > > > # --------------------------------------- > > # I added these this morning 2004/02/20 > > score FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK 0.5 > > score MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 0.1 > > score BUGGY_CGI 0.5 > > # --------------------------------------- > > # > > > > #rewrite_subject 0 > > #report_safe 1 > > > > > > On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 12:30, Ryan Moore wrote: > > > >>Not sure, I just upgraded my test box (my desktop) > to SA 2.63 and the > >>results were the same. You don't have any old > lingering rules laying > >>around from previous versions do you? > >> > >>Ryan Moore > >>---------- > >>Perigee.net Corporation > >>704-849-8355 (sales) > >>704-849-8017 (tech) > >>www.perigee.net > >> > >> > >> > >>Ezsra McDonald wrote: > >> > >>>Greetings, > >>>Why do you suppose that your 2.61, an older > version, passed the > >>>following tests and the newer version I am using > did not? > >>> > >>>FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK > >>>HTML_SHOUTING3 > >>>MAILTO_LINK > >>>MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME > >>> > >>>My SpamAssassin has not been tweaked in any way. > This is right out of > >>>the box. > >>> > >>>Is there a fix that I can put in my local.cf > file? > >>> > >>>--Ezsra > >>> > >>> > >>>On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 15:04, Ryan Moore wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scanning that same message I only got 0.5 > points: > >>>> > >>>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 > tests=BAYES_50,DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN, > >>>> HTML_70_80,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no > version=2.61 > >>>>X-Spam-Report: > >>>> * 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in > message > >>>> * 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability > is 50 to 56% > >>>> * [score: 0.5003] > >>>> * 0.1 HTML_70_80 BODY: Message is 70% to 80% > HTML > >>>> * 0.3 DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN RBL: From: sender > listed in > >>>> dsn.rfc-ignorant.org > >>>> > >>>>But I am also still using 2.61. > >>>> > >>>>Ryan Moore > >>>>---------- > >>>>Perigee.net Corporation > >>>>704-849-8355 (sales) > >>>>704-849-8017 (tech) > >>>>www.perigee.net > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Ezsra McDonald wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I have legitamate messages from my boss' mail > client > >>>>>getting marked as SPAM. I have seen others > reference > >>>>>simialr problems but no solutions were posted. > I > >>>>>upgraded to the lates version of SA ($VERSION = > >>>>>"2.63") and he still gets tagged. I have > attached an > >>>>>example text fomr of one of his messages. > >>>>> > >>>>>In a second message he sent me which was marked > "high > >>>>>priority" I found these headers: > >>>>> > >>>>>X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=9.2 tagged_above=3.5 > >>>>>required=6.3 tests=BUGGY_CGI, > >>>>>FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR, > >>>>>MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME, X_PRIORITY_HIGH > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't understand what BUGGY_CGI is. All I saw > were a > >>>>>few e-mail addresses and a URL to our website. > No CGI > >>>>>or code of any kind. > >>>>> > >>>>>I know the main issue is that he recently > upgraded his > >>>>>Outlook to Outlook 2003. > >>>>> > >>>>> > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
