BUT the scoring looks a little weird:
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11)
X-Spam-Report:
* 2.7 STRONG_BUY BODY: Tells you about a strong buy
* -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
* [score: 0.0000]
* 20 NICK_SPOOF_BOUNCE "Bounce from spoofed address"
* -10.0 AWL AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
NICK_SPOOF_BOUNCE,STRONG_BUY autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Level: *******What's the -10 AWL score? I don't remember ever having whitelisted anyone so what causes this very large negative score against this message?
Nick...
# ---------- BOUNCE DETECTION (stolen from bogus_virus_warnings.cf)--------- # General rule to indicate bounce or otherwise - used for some other rules header __BOUNCE_HEADER X-Is-A-Bounce =~ /.+/
# This won't match for scanning done at SMTP time, at least with Exim header __BOUNCE_RP1 Return-Path =~ /^<>$/ # NL says this is added by amavisd-new before passing to SA header __BOUNCE_RP2 X-Return-Path =~ /^<>$/ # Mark Martinec says the above is incorrect, and it's X-Envelope-From header __BOUNCE_RP3 X-Envelope-From =~ /^<>$/ meta __NULL_SENDER __BOUNCE_HEADER || __BOUNCE_RP1 || __BOUNCE_RP2 || __BOUNCE_RP3 # Thanks to AF header __CT_DEL_STATUS Content-Type =~ /report-type=delivery-status/ meta __NICK_IS_A_BOUNCE __NULL_SENDER || __CT_DEL_STATUS header __NICK_BOUNCE_RETURNPATH Return-Path =~ /<>/i header __NICK_BOUNCE_REAL To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i header __NICK_BOUNCE_SPOOF_SENDER To =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i meta NICK_SPOOF_BOUNCE ((__NICK_BOUNCE_RETURNPATH && __NICK_IS_A_BOUNCE && __NICK_BOUNCE_SPOOF_SENDER) && (!NICK_BOUNCE_REAL)) score NICK_SPOOF_BOUNCE 20.0 describe NICK_SPOOF_BOUNCE "Attached bounce contains my address but I never sent this!"
