On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:52:31, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:14:04 +0200
>
> Antony Stone wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:08:45, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
> > > Content analysis details: (13.1 points, 15.0 required)
> >
> > You said earlier "it gave 10 point for badword rule but there was no
> > match".
> >
> > I see no badword rule match getting 10 points in what you posted
> > above.
> >
> > Are you telling us about the same message each time you post bits of
> > information?
>
> The details of the rules are a distraction. The actual problem is that
> mail is being classified as spam despite having a score under the
> configured threshold.
I agree; however the inconsistent bits of information we're seeing from Farkas
Zsolt make it very difficult to get a clear picture of quite what's going on
under what circumstances.
> The first thing to try is to reproduce it on the command line using
> spamassassin -D , using the original emails from the reports. If that
> doesn't work it's probably a problem with the glue, which hasn't been
> mentioned yet.
I suspect you're spot on with that last part.
Antony.
--
BASIC is to computer languages what Roman numerals are to arithmetic.
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
