David Jones [mailto:djo...@ena.com]  wrote:
> There should be many more rule hits than just these 3.  It looks like 
> network tests aren't happening.
> Can you post the original email to pastebin.com with minimal redacting 
> so the rest of us can run it through our SA to see how it scores to help 
> with suggestions?

Thanks for taking time to answer. Here it is: https://pastebin.com/5XZ5kbus

> I suspect there needs to be some MTA tuning in front of SA along with 
> some SA tuning that is mentioned on this list every couple of months -- 
> add extra RBLs, add KAM.cf, enable some SA plugins, etc.

Oops. I'm a new member on this list. Could you please tell us which 
customizations do you mean?
I already looked KAM.cf, doesn't really help in situation. We're using a lot of 

> > It only assigns 0.8. (required_hits around 4.0)
> You are certainly free to set a local score higher if you want but that  is 
> probably not the main resolution to this issue.

I agree.

> > Version: spamassassin-3.3.2-4.el6.rfx.x86_64
> This is very old and no longer supported.  Why not upgrade to 3.4.x?

Because centos6 ships with this version. When the infrastructure was built, 
there were no centos7 around. Migration between the major versions is still not 
an easy thing to do.

> > My questions are:
> > 1) is there any chance to change spamassassin settings to mark similar 
> > messages as SPAM in the future?
> > bayes_50 with 0.8 points are really-really low.
> > 
> You should be hitting BAYES_95, BAYES_99, and BAYES_999 on these really 
> bad emails with proper training which would give it a higher probability 
> and thus a higher score.

I agree. Can't wait to see what your results are on this e-mail.

Best regards
  Szabolcs Horvath

Reply via email to