> how could you come to this conclusion, when the only BAYES score you
have
> got was BAYES_50 and you've had no BAYES_ before?
Maybe it just me, but I don't see BAYES_50.
> autolearn creates good starting database and it's often easier to
re-train
> on false-positives and false-negatives than train whole DB manually
> (my experience on multiple servers)
For troubleshooting, this is the reason.
> do you have razor and dcc installed?
Yes
> note that checing the same message later may cause much more hits
because of
> network checks started hitting since.
I have checked immediately, but yes possible.
> the question is, why do you have such different scores in amavis.
Exactly the reason for this thread.
> did you modify scores in amavis' config file?
No, no modifications.
On 1/30/18 3:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 29.01.18 13:39, Computer Bob wrote:
I also agree that at this point auto learn should be off and cleared
as I have done.
how could you come to this conclusion, when the only BAYES score you have
got was BAYES_50 and you've had no BAYES_ before?
autolearn creates good starting database and it's often easier to
re-train
on false-positives and false-negatives than train whole DB manually
(my experience on multiple servers)
But I still continue to get garbage mails through showing headers
such as:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.61 tagged_above=-9999 required=5
tests=[HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.61,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
do you have razor and dcc installed?
they help much when testing bulk mail / spam.
And as I said, when I run them through SA at the command line they
seem to score correctly.
note that checing the same message later may cause much more hits
because of
network checks started hitting since.
the question is, why do you have such different scores in amavis.
did you modify scores in amavis' config file?
