On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 10:12, Jeremy Portzer wrote: > On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 09:57, Brian Henning wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Is there some certain set of circumstances that would cause spamc to > > completely skip a message? Or is there a particular set of circumstances > > where spamc won't make any marks on a message? I was expecting that spamc > > would make a mark on all messages it examined, either to say X-Spam-Status: > > Yes or X-Spam-Status: No... More and more spam is slipping through lately > > (which is to be expected, I suppose), but a lot of it has no sa headers at > > all, which almost suggests it's not getting scanned. Here's the juicy bits > > of my /etc/procmailrc file; maybe someone will see something wrong with it? > > Sometimes spamc/spamd itself will refuse to scan a message, and return > it to procmail without adding the headers. This could be due to large > size; huge messages are sometimes skipped because it can really bog-down > the pattern-matching within spamd. I think there is a setting for this > in /etc/mail/spamassasin/local.cf, but a quick look through perldoc > Mail::SpamAssasin:Conf isn't revealing it, so maybe I'm hallucinating. > > Also make sure you don't have any other settings that might be causing > the headers not to be set -- there are a lot of options on what to do > with the headers. > > Jeremy
Jeremy is not hallucinating. Large emails are skipped. Also a lot of spam these days is encoded in a gif - so it looks like a real message, but its simply an image. I don't think spam assassin is doing too good a job against that currently. Jon -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
