Robert Grosshandler wrote:
Sounds like a spam headline, doesn't it?
Anyway, we're getting obvious spam, but we're not able to weight it
enough to block it. Any tests you might suggest. The following came
to us BCC'd, I believe. Nothing about it was appropriate for us.
<snip/>
X-RBL-Warning: SNIFFER: Message failed SNIFFER: 60.
X-Declude-Sender: scp...@yahoo.com.ar [173.15.150.165]
X-Declude-Spoolname: Dccef01a20000279a.smd
X-Declude-RefID: str=0001.0A010203.498BCCF8.0197,ss=1,fgs=0
X-Declude-Scan: Incoming Score [11] at 23:39:07 on 05 Feb 2009
X-Declude-Fail: UCEPROTECT-1 [4], SNIFFER [12], WEIGHT9 [9], WEIGHTMID
[10], ZEROHOUR [0]
I'm biased, but you might increase the weight you add for SNF -- I note
it did fail the message.
Most systems seem to weight SNF so that SNF + any other test will hold a
message.
Many hold on SNF alone.
Given that general practice, adding weight to SNF might solve this
problem for you.
_M
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
