Thanks for the response. Yah I think it is just too aggressive, I included a handful of rules Is there any forum or website that discuss about (lists of ) rules that is likely to result in more false positives ?
-----Original Message----- From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:35 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: ways to check reason/error of rejected/bounced emails with calling customers Please teach your mailer to wrap lines in a sane way... On 01.07.08 11:46, NGSS wrote: > Many of our clients started to have problem sending emails to us after I > inserted more strict > SA rules . Previously our system was flooded with spams. So I decided to > inserted them to the > Existing emails. After this the spams had reduced significantly. But I know > more worry about false > Positive and rejected (or sometimes disappeared emails) . > I can't call all of them to get them to send me the bounced/error messages. > So I wonder if there is a > Way to check for the rejected emails and why they are being rejected? So at > least I know what reason > For the rejects and will be able to fine-tine it further. Seems you set up your MTA too agressively - probably reject mail with too low score. However you did not provide enough informations for us to help you. What's "existing emails"? Did you train global BAYES filter on received spam? Did you feed it enough of hams to avoid FPs? Did you play with scores? What did you set required_score to? Did you fiddle with other settings like trusted_networks and internal_networks to set up proper trust path? Did you turn on all possible network rules? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Micro$oft random number generator: 0, 0, 0, 4.33e+67, 0, 0, 0...
