> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:37 +0200, a...@exys.org wrote: > > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > On 04.08.09 20:09, a...@exys.org wrote: > > >> I have obviously never received any mail from that sender, so why does > > >> it hit? > > >> > .... > > in later mail you mention that you run SA before greylisting.
On 05.08.09 00:31, Martin Gregorie wrote: > If, for some (very) odd reason you run greylisting after SA then *of > course* your host has (a) seen the mail and (b) passed it through SA. > How else can the mail get to the greylister? > > Would you care to explain why you put a greylister behind SA? > Do you know how a greylister works and why it was designed to work that > way? He already explained that he greylists only mail that scores above a limit. In that case we can assume the spam scored high even before so it got greylisted. In such case I doubt it was learned as ham, unless the greylisting check is broken... > > nope. i grepped the global log. the only time that sender ever ocurs it > > was temporary rejected due to greylisting. > And where else did greylisted mail appear in the log? > > For the mail to be logged as rejected by a greylister *after* its been > through SA it must also have been inspected by AWL and therefore it did > affect the AWL database. the question is, why it scored hammy? aep, how did it score before greylisting? Are you sure you do not have bug in your greylisting code? Btw, I'm not sure if it should not be low scoring messages (spams) for which greylisting is very good, since you won't become that early recipient... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; 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. Posli tento mail 100 svojim znamim - nech vidia aky si idiot Send this email to 100 your friends - let them see what an idiot you are
