Thanks for your help! I discovered AWL enable in init.pre which short-circuit all other plugins. I disabled AWL and spamassassin is working fine now.
Thanks for your help! _Motty -----Original Message----- From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto:uh...@fantomas.sk] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 10:16 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: local.cf example On 01.11.16 11:24, Motty Cruz wrote: >Very strange, missed configuration, here is another header and I have >not change any configuration and yet this one was scanned: >X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.604 tagged_above=-999.9 required=5.6 > tests=[AWL=2.468, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.076, DKIM_SIGNED=0.99, > DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VERIFIED=0.99, > HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, >RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=2.3, > RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, > RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED=-3, RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE=-2, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, > SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no the former was scanned too, but it only hit RDNS_NONE with extremely increased score. ...I have increased score for RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED to -0.03 and RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE to -0.02 to avoid spam from "certified" spammers. Note that you have enabled network tests but I see no sign of RAZOR, PYROZ and DCC (they all need extra SW installed). Also, still no BAYES (maybe manual training would help) >On 01.11.16 08:43, Motty Cruz wrote: >>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com >>X-Spam-Flag: NO >>X-Spam-Score: 5.5 >>X-Spam-Level: ***** >>X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 tagged_above=-999.9 required=5.6 >> tests=[RDNS_NONE=5.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no >>Received: from HOST1.fqdn.com ([127.0.0.1]) >> >>This-election is the craziest in our country's history so far but >>in-spite of all the press-surrounding it, there is something that NO >>ONE seems to have the-guts to talk about... >> >>Totally spam E-mail, should have score higher, but there was only one >score? > >RDNS_NONE does only score 1.1/0.7, why did you bump it to 5.5? > >You apparently miss modules, network checks, BAYES (database apparently >under "amavis" user) ... > >yes, even in such cases you may only get only one rule hit (e.g. >BAYES_99) but it's quite rare case -- 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
