Thanks for the reply Michele. However, my question still applies even if the spam threshold were increased. In some cases false positives are marked with a score that is well beyond what I have found a effective threshold for our networks. Here is an example:
> X-Spam-Report: > * 1.6 BAYES_60 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 60 to 70% > * [score: 0.6887] > * 4.9 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL > * [67.125.228.229 listed in sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org] > * 1.7 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP > * [67.125.228.229 listed in combined.njabl.org] > * 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP > address > * [67.125.228.229 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] > * -1.1 AWL AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_60, > RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL autolearn=no The question again: how to make spamassassin more lenient for dynamic RBLed IPs? Is the best solution simply to lower the score for RBL rules? -Quinn 2004-09-21 11:56 PM -- Michele Neylon : Blacknight Solutions --------------------------- >You should increase your spam threshold instead of trying to adjust the >scores assigned to dynamic IPs. >> >-- >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >http://www.blacknight.ie >059 9137101 > > >-- >Email scanned by Blacknight for viruses and dangerous content. >Visit http://www.blacknight.ie for more information
