On 10/03/2023 10:26, John McMurray via Exim-users wrote:
I'd also like to be able to increase the $spam_score_int variable so that mail
clients can decide how they want to handle higher spam scores.
That variable is set by a call to SpamAssasin. Your code snippet doesn't
mention it; it's
Hi all,
This might be more of a spamassassin question, I'm not really sure.
In my exim4.conf file I currently deny incoming email based on dns block
lists, eg:
deny
message = JunkMail rejected - $sender_fullhost is in an
RBL, see $dnslist_text
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users @ 2023-01-26 14:23 :
> On 26/01/2023 10:31, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users wrote:
>> with a score of -12.6
>
> How was that part verified?
Thanks - I shouldn’t write to mailing lists when I have a cold. I was mislead
by the original mail from the user. The mail
On 26/01/2023 10:31, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users wrote:
with a score of -12.6
How was that part verified?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list -
On 26/01/2023 14:43, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
> The ">" comparison operator accepts integers, argument "-12.6" should raise
> an error. Negative values are valid. You can strip out dot with ${sg{..}},
> for example. Maybe there are some more elegant solutions...
But
Hello.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:31:24AM +0100, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users
wrote:
> deny message = delivery error with obfuscating details
> condition = ${if >{$spam_score_int}{120}{1}{0}}
>
> Usually this is no problem. But now I have a user who got a mail that was
> denied with a
Hi!
I deny messages in an acl if they have a score of more than 8 or 12:
(shortened version with less conditions, that are not relevant here probably):
deny message = delivery error with obfuscating details
condition = ${if >{$spam_score_int}{120}{1}{0}}
Usually this is no problem. But now I
On 09.01.2010 23:54, Peter wrote:
thanks a lot Kirill, Heiko and Ted for your help. I got a little bit
deeper. I don't want to scan the email in the ACL because I can't train the
bayes-filter user-specific in ACL. In ACL I can only use a bayes-filter for
one system-wide user.
Using
Hello,
I'm using the old integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
(transport=pipe):
-
spamcheck_router:
no_verify
condition = ${if and { {!def:h_X-Spam-Flag:} {!eq
{$received_protocol}{spam-scanned}}}
Peter wrote:
I'm using the old integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
(transport=pipe):
I believe $spam_scrore_int is only available when using the new
integration of SpamAssassin into Exim in the ACLs.
You may
Ted Cooper eximx09...@linuxwan.net (Sa 09 Jan 2010 12:28:09 CET):
Peter wrote:
I'm using the old integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
(transport=pipe):
I believe $spam_scrore_int is only available when
* Heiko Schlittermann [2010-01-09 13:09]:
I'm using the old integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
(transport=pipe):
I believe $spam_scrore_int is only available when using the new
integration of
Hello,
thanks a lot Kirill, Heiko and Ted for your help. I got a little bit
deeper. I don't want to scan the email in the ACL because I can't train the
bayes-filter user-specific in ACL. In ACL I can only use a bayes-filter for
one system-wide user.
So I took Kirill's hint, that it's possible
* Peter [2010-01-09 23:54]:
Hello,
thanks a lot Kirill, Heiko and Ted for your help. I got a little bit
deeper. I don't want to scan the email in the ACL because I can't train the
bayes-filter user-specific in ACL. In ACL I can only use a bayes-filter for
one system-wide user.
So I took
Hello,
I'm using the old integration of Spamassassin within Exim4 with the
following spamcheck_router (router=accept) and the spamcheck-transport
(transport=pipe):
-
spamcheck_router:
no_verify
condition = ${if and { {!def:h_X-Spam-Flag:} {!eq
{$received_protocol}{spam-scanned}}}
Hi,
what could be the reason that $spam_score is set but $spam_score_int isn't?
acl_check_data:
warnmessage = X-Spam-Score: $spam_score ($spam_bar)
spam = nobody:true
warnmessage = X-Spam-Report: $spam_report
spam = nobody:true
denymessage
On 2008-11-24 at 16:49 +0100, Christian Meutes wrote:
what could be the reason that $spam_score is set but $spam_score_int isn't?
That's not happening.
acl_check_data:
warnmessage = X-Spam-Score: $spam_score ($spam_bar)
spam = nobody:true
warnmessage =
Hi,
--On Dienstag, 25. November 2008 01:28 -0800 Phil Pennock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your condition is true for scores greater than 40.0 (and 40.0 itself is
not large enough, I suspect = would be closer).
i configured that integer for a long while now and thought it would be
working.
Had
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
Hi,
There's a better way to do it without collateral spam described in a
guide somewhere, but what you have is working for you so .. yeah.
Well, I could just blackhole the message, of course.
I was thinking more along the lines of only accepting the email for the
Hi,
There's a better way to do it without collateral spam described in a
guide somewhere, but what you have is working for you so .. yeah.
Well, I could just blackhole the message, of course.
Anyway, what's happening ..
[...]
Assuming I'm correct (ha!), if an email comes in and is spam
Hi,
I could use some clarification on the following issue. In my RCPT ACL, I
have:
denymessage = Sender verification failed
!verify = sender
My first router is this:
bounce_spam:
driver = redirect
domains =
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
Hi,
I could use some clarification on the following issue. In my RCPT ACL, I
have:
denymessage = Sender verification failed
!verify = sender
My first router is this:
bounce_spam:
driver = redirect
Hi Ted,
I could use some clarification on the following issue. In my RCPT ACL, I
have:
denymessage = Sender verification failed
!verify = sender
My first router is this:
bounce_spam:
driver = redirect
domains
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
So, still believing my configuration isn't all that weird ;-) my
question remains: how can $spam_score_int be set during sender
verification from the rcpt ACL?
Ok, now I get it.
There's a better way to do it without collateral spam described in a
guide somewhere, but
Can anyone confirm that spam_score_int is (and is intended to
be) an *unsigned* integer?
Or not?
Bill
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
Quoting W B Hacker:
Can anyone confirm that spam_score_int is (and is intended to be) an
*unsigned* integer?
Of course not, many scores are negative, like your mail:
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
Oh, and please don't steal threads (last point of MailingListEtiquette).
--
## List details at
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Quoting W B Hacker:
Can anyone confirm that spam_score_int is (and is intended to be) an
*unsigned* integer?
Of course not, many scores are negative, like your mail:
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
Oh, and please don't steal threads (last point of MailingListEtiquette).
Quoting W B Hacker:
Steal threads *how* ?? I started a new one.
No, you replied to a message in an existing thread, otherwise there
would have been no References and In-Reply-To header.
Still not sure where the negative spam score is coming from BTW
low bayes score, whitelisting, whatever
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Quoting W B Hacker:
Steal threads *how* ?? I started a new one.
No, you replied to a message in an existing thread, otherwise there
would have been no References and In-Reply-To header.
Ah so - not sure how I missed that - thanks.
Still not sure where the
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Quoting W B Hacker:
Steal threads *how* ?? I started a new one.
No, you replied to a message in an existing thread, otherwise there
would have been no References and In-Reply-To header.
Still not sure where the negative spam score is coming from BTW
low bayes
30 matches
Mail list logo
