On Mon, 10 May 2021 20:39:31 +0200
Bert Van de Poel wrote:
> Based on what I've read, I agree that this is indeed a bug (or
> actually several). I've filed the following bug reports:
> https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7904 (missing body
> types, as mentioned by RW)
>
Dear Loren,
Thank you very much for your email. Based on your message I could deduce
there were earlier messages (which I then read through a web archive).
For some unexplained reason I never received the previous 3 responses to
my email. I hope the university network isn't randomly
so you don't have points from body rules.
your mentioned URI_DEOBFU_INSTR is a meta rule:
meta URI_DEOBFU_INSTR __URI_DEOBFU_INSTR && !__MSGID_OK_HOST
so maybe it's not considered.
They are treated as header, or ignored if marked as net.
I think a bug report should be submitted for this.
On Sun, 9 May 2021 20:03:27 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> so you don't have points from body rules.
>
> your mentioned URI_DEOBFU_INSTR is a meta rule:
>
> meta URI_DEOBFU_INSTR __URI_DEOBFU_INSTR && !__MSGID_OK_HOST
>
> so maybe it's not considered.
They are treated as header, or
On 09.05.21 04:17, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
Dear fellow Spamassassin users,
I recently noticed that quite a lot of spam emails with high scores
weren't marked for Bayes autolearning. While some senders and
receivers were a common match, explaining why autolearn was nog, there
was no clear
On Sun, 9 May 2021 04:17:26 +0200
Bert Van de Poel wrote:
> Within the same realm, I'm also wondering whether these expected
> numbers for body and header can be tweaked and if so, how.
You can create a meta-rule for definite spam and set:
tflags autolearn_force
a hit on any rule with
