On 4-Mar-2009, at 12:33, Rob Tanner wrote:
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0 (2007-05-01) on
microthunder.com
They really *really* need to update their two-year old SA install.
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.4 required=4.0
They really *REALLY* need to understand the consequences of lowering
the threshold, as this is nearly always a very very bad idea. SA does
not think your message is spamish, their mailadmin does.
RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO
Well, that one is possibly your fault, and you should certainly fix it
if it is.
What I don’t get is the first test in the X-Spam-Report header which
received a 2.6. Does postfix strictly send the IP address on the
HELO/EHLO?
Only if it has no choice.
If so, what parameter to I need to set to $myhostname? Or, am I
entirely
misunderstanding what that test tests for?
# INTERNET HOST AND DOMAIN NAMES
#
# The myhostname parameter specifies the internet hostname of this
# mail system. The default is to use the fully-qualified domain name
# from gethostname(). $myhostname is used as a default value for many
# other configuration parameters.
#
#myhostname = host.domain.tld
#myhostname = virtual.domain.tld
However, your headers to the list look perfectly fine. My suspicion,
irrational without the full headers you sent them and the full message
they sent back, is that they screwed something up on their end with
the RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO test and that some eager-beaver "sysadmin"
changed something they didn't understand to "get better results". I
base this on the evidence that some eager-beaver "sysadmin" lowered
the threshold to 4.0 without understanding the consequences to "get
better results".
Feel free to forward my comments along to David Sosnowski @ <microthunder....@gmail.com
>
--
What the hell's goin' on in the engine room? Were there
monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?
