Spam Score Analysis
carlos.mennens at gmail.com
Fri Sep 9 15:08:00 CEST 2011
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Michael Scheidell
<michael.scheidell at secnap.com> wrote:
> yes, it is because
> #1, you set your required score to 3. recommended score is 5. if you had
> set it to 5, you would not have this problem
I don't have a problem. I simply asked how am I able to determine why
a message is scored the way it is. I simply want to evaluate the SA
scores. I'm fully aware the recommended settings and like them the way
they are. I don't consider this a problem at all just so we're clear.
> #2, your local_networks/trusted networks is wrong. it his RCVD_IN_PBL rule.
> since you neglected to include any header information at all, #2 is just a
I posted what I assumed to be relevant SA header info in my initial
email which you also quoted in yours. I'm guessing it wasn't
sufficient but since I'm not expect and didn't want to submit more
data than was needed, I would assume someone would just ask for me
info if we needed to go that route. List users get cranky when you
submit logs and or headers w/o being asked for them or vice versa it
> concentrate on #2, google, see FAQ's on amavisd and SA web sites.
I'm going to follow your #2 suggestion just to understand but I'm
curious what makes you think it's wrong? How can you tell?
More information about the amavis-users