Re: problems with redirected mail

2006-10-31 Thread Wojciech Potrzebowski
I assume that I scan all mail automatically (obviously there might be 
some setup errors). Still I don't know why some redirected e-mails get 
through when others not, even if both are scored as spam on my local server.

Thank's
Wojtek
Magnus Holmgren wrote:

On Monday 30 October 2006 21:41, Wojciech Potrzebowski took the opportunity to 
say:
 


I understand that there are different configurations of two servers but
I am wondering if there is any possibility to catch these mail (not
treated as spam with remote server) on my local server.
   



Well, certainly. Why not just ignore the result from the remote server and run 
SpamAssassin yourself, as you've apparently managed to do? Do you need help 
setting SA up so that all mail is scanned automatically? What you *shouldn't* 
do is to reject mail forwarded by the remote server, because then it will 
start sending bounces to innocent people whose addresses where forged as 
senders of the spam.


 





Re: problems with redirected mail

2006-10-30 Thread Magnus Holmgren
On Monday 30 October 2006 06:07, Wojciech Potrzebowski took the opportunity to 
say:
 I am running spamassassin with qmail. It catchs up most of mail that is
 scored as spam. However, some e-mails that are redirected form the other
 mail server (also with spam checking system) get through even it is
 treates spam if I run local test. Any idea how to fix the problem?

Please provide one or more examples, with the SA headers from both servers, of 
mail that got through the other server but was classified as spam on the 
local server. There are a couple of ways the scores can differ if the systems 
don't exchange information.

-- 
Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)


pgptcwaxCvv4l.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: problems with redirected mail

2006-10-30 Thread Wojciech Potrzebowski

Thank you for your time in handling with this case!
I have atached two e-mails with headers from both servers. I can only 
configure SA on my local server: iwonka.med.virginia.edu. I don't have 
access to the other mail server.

Best regards,
Wojtek
---BeginMessage---
Received: from localhost by iwonka.med.virginia.edu
with SpamAssassin (version 3.0.6);
Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:46:26 -0400
From: Investors.com briefcase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Growth alert that brings profit, look through the email
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:39:31 +0700
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.6 (2005-12-07) on 
iwonka.med.virginia.edu
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,NO_RECEIVED,
NO_RELAYS,TO_WM_FROM_COM autolearn=no version=3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--=_45421BC2.7E55E961

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

=_45421BC2.7E55E961
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Spam detection software, running on the system iwonka.med.virginia.edu, has
identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview:  Paul Robinson, whose World Cup was a mixed bag. They 
  have now won the competition four times, one fewer than Brazil, and it 
  was theAmbassador Bolton: The Security Council upheld its 
  responsibility and passed a [...] 

Content analysis details:   (5.5 points, 4.0 required)

 pts rule name  description
 -- --
 2.0 TO_WM_FROM_COM To [EMAIL PROTECTED] from a .com
-0.0 NO_RELAYS  Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
 3.5 BAYES_99   BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 0.]
-0.0 NO_RECEIVEDInformational: message has no Received headers



=_45421BC2.7E55E961
Content-Type: message/rfc822; x-spam-type=original
Content-Description: original message before SpamAssassin
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Investors.com briefcase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Growth alert that brings profit, look through the email
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:39:31 +0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork9.mail.virginia.edu
X-Sender-IP: 222.253.216.151
X-UVa-Vac-OK: 1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 tagged_above=1.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,
 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY
X-Spam-Level: x

Paul Robinson, whose World Cup was a mixed bag.
They have now won the competition four times, one fewer than Brazil, and it was 
theAmbassador Bolton: The Security Council upheld its responsibility and 
passed a

The essence of the game is goals. If it's an open game, there is enough room 
for 11Explanation of tournament rules and regulations

but England's appeals came to nothing.
embroiled in a corruption scandal similar to 1982 when they last won the World 
Cup.the back for England in a tense first half.Figo's headbutt on Mark van 
Bommel, Philippe Senderos being covered in blood after
Dare McClaren drop Lampard to accommodate Hargreaves and Gerrard?



=_45421BC2.7E55E961--



---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Investors.com briefcase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Growth alert that brings profit, look through the email
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:39:31 +0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork9.mail.virginia.edu
X-Sender-IP: 222.253.216.151
X-UVa-Vac-OK: 1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 tagged_above=1.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,
 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY
X-Spam-Level: x

Paul Robinson, whose World Cup was a mixed bag.
They have now won the competition four times, one fewer than Brazil, and it was 
theAmbassador Bolton: The Security Council upheld its responsibility and 
passed a

The essence of the game is goals. If it's an open game, there is enough room 
for 11Explanation of tournament rules and regulations

but England's appeals came to nothing.
embroiled in a corruption scandal similar to 1982 when they last won the World 
Cup.the back for England in a tense first half.Figo's headbutt on Mark van 
Bommel, Philippe Senderos being covered in blood after
Dare McClaren drop Lampard to accommodate Hargreaves and Gerrard?




---End Message---


Re: problems with redirected mail

2006-10-30 Thread Magnus Holmgren
On Monday 30 October 2006 20:44, Wojciech Potrzebowski took the opportunity to 
say:
 Thank you for your time in handling with this case!
 I have atached two e-mails with headers from both servers. I can only
 configure SA on my local server: iwonka.med.virginia.edu. I don't have
 access to the other mail server.

As you can see, on your local server the spam hits BAYES_99:

 X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,NO_RECEIVED,
 NO_RELAYS,TO_WM_FROM_COM autolearn=no version=3.0.6

But on the other server bayesian-style (it's not pure bayesian, but modified 
to be better) classifying isn't used at all, or isn't trained (they're using 
Amavisd-new as the interface to SA, which (in a way) explains the slightly 
different header format. In any case, you won't get the same results unless 
both servers share the same bayes database.

-- 
Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)


pgpsV8RYWvryj.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: problems with redirected mail

2006-10-30 Thread Wojciech Potrzebowski
I understand that there are different configurations of two servers but 
I am wondering if there is any possibility to catch these mail (not 
treated as spam with remote server) on my local server.

Thank's
Wojtek
Magnus Holmgren wrote:

On Monday 30 October 2006 20:44, Wojciech Potrzebowski took the opportunity to 
say:
 


Thank you for your time in handling with this case!
I have atached two e-mails with headers from both servers. I can only
configure SA on my local server: iwonka.med.virginia.edu. I don't have
access to the other mail server.
   



As you can see, on your local server the spam hits BAYES_99:

 


X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,NO_RECEIVED,
   NO_RELAYS,TO_WM_FROM_COM autolearn=no version=3.0.6
   



But on the other server bayesian-style (it's not pure bayesian, but modified 
to be better) classifying isn't used at all, or isn't trained (they're using 
Amavisd-new as the interface to SA, which (in a way) explains the slightly 
different header format. In any case, you won't get the same results unless 
both servers share the same bayes database.


 





problems with redirected mail

2006-10-29 Thread Wojciech Potrzebowski
I am running spamassassin with qmail. It catchs up most of mail that is 
scored as spam. However, some e-mails that are redirected form the other 
mail server (also with spam checking system) get through even it is 
treates spam if I run local test. Any idea how to fix the problem?


Wojtek