Not sure if this is an amavisd-new or SA question but will try here
first...

E-mail that should be hitting on the URIBL_WS_SURBL checks are not.
Below is the header of one I just received a few minutes ago:

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: $17168
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:47:35 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at comcierge.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 tagged_above=-100.0 required=3.0 tests=BAD_CREDIT,
 BAYES_44, MSGID_DOLLARS, NO_REAL_NAME, SUBJ_DOLLARS
X-Spam-Level: **


I took the same email and ran it through a test on the mail server
directly and it hit fine...

Content analysis details:   (16.4 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 0.6 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
 0.2 SUBJ_DOLLARS           Subject starts with dollar amount
 0.4 BAD_CREDIT             BODY: Eliminate Bad Credit
 1.7 RCVD_IN_DSBL           RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org
                            [<http://dsbl.org/listing?ip=218.234.88.108>]
 1.5 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
              [Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?218.234.88.108>]
 1.3 URIBL_SBL              Contains a URL listed in the SBL blocklist
                            [URIs: lending-home.com]
 1.0 URIBL_AB_SURBL         Contains a URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist
                            [URIs: lending-home.com]
 3.0 URIBL_WS_SURBL         Contains a URL listed in sa-blacklist
                            [URIs: lending-home.com]
 1.0 URIBL_OB_SURBL         Contains a URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist
                            [URIs: lending-home.com]
 4.0 URIBL_SC_SURBL         URL listed in the sc.surbl.org blocklist
                            [URIs: lending-home.com]
 1.6 MSGID_DOLLARS          Message-Id has pattern used in spam

Why would it be working on a direct test but not during normal use?

--
Regards,
 Matt                         

Reply via email to