Hey Evan, On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 05:10, Evan Platt wrote: <snip> > X-Spam-Flag: YES > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.88 required=5.00 > tests=FORGED_MUA_EUDORA,BAYES_60 version=2.61 > X-Spam-Level: ***** > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.2.2) on espphotography.com
Upgrade your SA, 2.61 is quite old. As has been said in other threads - SA is like anti-virus software: it needs to be kept updated. > Is there some problem on my end that may be causing ISP's to reject my > message? If this message was a phone number and scored a 5.88, I'm > wondering if a full message might be higher or flat out be rejected at the > MUA level. Have you got an DSN's from other mail servers? Check if you're listed in any DNSBLs. Most ISPs are [hopefully] running an up to date version of SA. Usually if your message is rejected by the mail server, you'll get a bounce from the 'sending' server to say that it couldn't deliver it. Try sending from another email account, and try sending from your email account to another, to see what happens, most importantly - check your MTA logs - logs are invaluable. > Forged MUA: I'm using Eudora as it says. I'm not totally sure about this one, since I don't know Eudora - you could try upgrading to the latest version of SA, it may be that this rule has been updated since then. > Bayes_60? Why?! There have been several threads on bayes misclassifying mail as spam, or ham. You can re-learn that mail as ham, and you can try feeding bayes ham and spam to try and rectify the problem. However, a you may find it easier to just completely nuke your bayes db and start over. HTH -- -jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | spamtrap: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://silverdream.org | p: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key @ http://silverdream.org/~jps/pub.key 05:30:01 up 2 days, 15:32, 2 users, load average: 0.68, 0.62, 0.70
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
