You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Motty Cruz <mo...@gmail.com> on 2015/04/09 23:09:28 UTC
spamassassin low score
Hello,
I get a spam with very low score. AWL=1.350 but that address in not in
the whitelist.
local.cf
required_score 5.0
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sscsinc.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5.3
tests=[AWL=1.350, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
any suggestions?
Thanks,
Motty
Re: spamassassin low score
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
On 4/9/2015 8:24 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2015, at 17:09, Motty Cruz wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I get a spam with very low score. AWL=1.350 but that address in not
>> in the whitelist.
>>
>> local.cf
>> required_score 5.0
>>
>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sscsinc.com
>> X-Spam-Flag: NO
>> X-Spam-Score: -0.559
>> X-Spam-Level:
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5.3
>> tests=[AWL=1.350, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
>> HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
>> T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
>>
>> any suggestions?
>
> Bluntly: you're wrong about the address, it WAS in the AWL that was
> used to check that message.
>
> AWL is not really a "whitelist" despite the name and in this case it
> added 1.350 to the spam score, presumably because you've previously
> received messages from the same sender that scored higher, i.e. MORE
> SPAMMY. AWL is designed to skew scores towards the history of the
> sender: good OR bad.
>
> It may be significant that you claim local.cf has "required_score 5.0"
> yet the X-Spam-Status header says "required=5.3". It seems possible
> that you have a per-user config involved here...
Since you are using Amavis, the required_score in local.cf is
irrelevant. Amavis uses it's own settings for the required scores.
--
Bowie
Re: spamassassin low score
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 9 Apr 2015, at 17:09, Motty Cruz wrote:
> Hello,
> I get a spam with very low score. AWL=1.350 but that address in not in
> the whitelist.
>
> local.cf
> required_score 5.0
>
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sscsinc.com
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Spam-Score: -0.559
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5.3
> tests=[AWL=1.350, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
> DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
> HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
> T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
>
> any suggestions?
Bluntly: you're wrong about the address, it WAS in the AWL that was used
to check that message.
AWL is not really a "whitelist" despite the name and in this case it
added 1.350 to the spam score, presumably because you've previously
received messages from the same sender that scored higher, i.e. MORE
SPAMMY. AWL is designed to skew scores towards the history of the
sender: good OR bad.
It may be significant that you claim local.cf has "required_score 5.0"
yet the X-Spam-Status header says "required=5.3". It seems possible that
you have a per-user config involved here...
Re: spamassassin low score
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 09.04.2015 um 23:09 schrieb Motty Cruz:
> Hello,
> I get a spam with very low score. AWL=1.350 but that address in not in
> the whitelist.
>
> local.cf
> required_score 5.0
>
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sscsinc.com
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Spam-Score: -0.559
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5.3
> tests=[AWL=1.350, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
> HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
> T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
>
> any suggestions?
BAYES_00 - so train your bayes