On 11/5/20 4:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, RW wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:48:48 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
On 4 Nov 2020, at 13:31, Thomas Anderson wrote:
* 1.8 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but
no X-MimeOLE
In addition to what John noted, that one
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, RW wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:48:48 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
On 4 Nov 2020, at 13:31, Thomas Anderson wrote:
* 1.8 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but
no X-MimeOLE
In addition to what John noted, that one looks like a candidate for
constructing
On 4 Nov 2020, at 20:42, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 00:21:
1. Incorrect SPF records are not rare. Even '-all' records with some
permitted IPs.
envelope sender changes on nexthop
Irrelevant to the problem cited, which is simply incorrect records that
fail to list
Bill Cole skrev den 2020-11-05 00:21:
1. Incorrect SPF records are not rare. Even '-all' records with some
permitted IPs.
envelope sender changes on nexthop
2. Traditional (/etc/aliases, ~/.forward, etc.) transparent forwarding
breaks SPF.
envelope sender changes on nexthop
nothing is
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:48:48 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2020, at 13:31, Thomas Anderson wrote:
>
> > * 1.8 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but
> > no X-MimeOLE
>
> In addition to what John noted, that one looks like a candidate for
> constructing an exception.
On 4 Nov 2020, at 13:31, Thomas Anderson wrote:
* 1.8 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no
X-MimeOLE
In addition to what John noted, that one looks like a candidate for
constructing an exception. MISSING_MIMEOLE already has a number of
exceptions based on the fact that
On 4 Nov 2020, at 9:47, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Why does SpamAssassin (Debian 10, SpamAssassin 3.4.2) not count an SPF
> check fail as a symptom of spam? That's what I see in the spam report:
>
> 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
>
> No
Please don't hijack existing threads.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:47:34 +0700
Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Why does SpamAssassin (Debian 10, SpamAssassin 3.4.2) not count an SPF
> check fail as a symptom of spam? That's what I see in the spam
> report:
>
> 0.0 SPF_FAIL
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:18:56 +0100
David Bürgin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> as far as I understand, SpamAssassin can recognise and consume
> incoming SPF results in an Authentication-Results or Received-SPF
> header, so that it doesn’t have to do its own SPF evaluation.
>
> I’m using SpamAssassin in a
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, Thomas Anderson wrote:
Hello,
Email from my child's school is being identified as SPAM, but it's from
his teacher.
Here is the X-SPAM-Report:
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
* [194.25.134.21 listed in
Hello,
Email from my child's school is being identified as SPAM, but it's from
his teacher.
Here is the X-SPAM-Report:
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
* [194.25.134.21 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
* 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender
Hello,
as far as I understand, SpamAssassin can recognise and consume incoming
SPF results in an Authentication-Results or Received-SPF header, so that
it doesn’t have to do its own SPF evaluation.
I’m using SpamAssassin in a milter setup with Postfix, and have an SPF
milter that runs before
Victor Sudakov skrev den 2020-11-04 15:47:
0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
feel free to add into local.cf
score SPF_FAIL (5) (5) (5) (5)
this will add 5 points to default score
i just think default score is made for spamass milter users with do
Dear Colleagues,
Why does SpamAssassin (Debian 10, SpamAssassin 3.4.2) not count an SPF
check fail as a symptom of spam? That's what I see in the spam report:
0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
No spam points for an SPF fail? And it's even a hard fail (a
14 matches
Mail list logo
