Reio Remma skrev den 2018-06-12 09:34:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.32 tagged_above=-3 required=3 tests=[
BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1,
NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=1, TXREP=1.719] autolearn=ham
> On 12 Jun 2018, at 17:11, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jun 2018, at 3:34, Reio Remma wrote:
>> I just noticed *autolearn=ham* for a message with a positive spam score. Is
>> that normal?
>> X-Spam-Flag: NO
>> X-Spam-Score: 2.32
>> X-Spam-Level: **
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.32
On 12 Jun 2018, at 3:34, Reio Remma wrote:
Hello!
I just noticed *autolearn=ham* for a message with a positive spam
score. Is that normal?
No, but it is also not especially remarkable. The final operative score
is not the score that is used to determine autolearning.
Hello!
I just noticed *autolearn=ham* for a message with a positive spam score.
Is that normal?
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam is set to a negative figure in the
SpamAssassin config file.
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.32
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.32 tagged_above=-3
