On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, b...@inter-control.com wrote:
Oh, here is the X-SPAM status from the command line:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
M1-2.dettenwanger.inter-control.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: ***********************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=23.0 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS,RDNS_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID,
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_DBL_SPAM autolearn=no
autolearn_force=no
version=3.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Bob
RAZOR and URIBL hits.
Is amavis perhaps configured to disable network tests?
On 1/26/18 2:48 PM, David Jones wrote:
On 01/26/2018 02:39 PM, b...@inter-control.com wrote:
The headers that get through are usually along the lines of:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-9999 required=5
tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-1, SPF_PASS=-1,
T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Regardless, giving -1 score for SPF_PASS and another -1 for SPF_HELO_PASS
is nontrivial DainBRamage.
It's trivial for a spammer to set up SPF on a throw-away domain and thus waltz
thru that kind of filtering.
Who set up amavis with that kind of idiocy?
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
