Forgive my ignorance... I assume that "negatively-scored" means that it is less likely to be spam, correct?
Here is an example of a message that should have been flagged: X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_10_20, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK, SARE_RECV_IP_218071,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_GK,URIBL_SBL autolearn=no version=3.0.2 How do I read this and what do I do with this? I assume this is what you were asking me to look at, right? ...Jake >>>>> "KP" == Kevin Peuhkurinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: KP> You can begin by looking at the headers of false negatives and see KP> what rules they are hitting. Are they hitting any negatively-scored KP> rules? KP> Jake Colman wrote: >> I upgraded from SA 2.x to 3.x a few weeks ago. I also installed the Rules Du >> Jour script for maintaining SARE files. After doing all this the amount of >> spam caught by SA increased dramatically. All was well. >> >> A few days ago I suddenly started having spam get through just like the bad >> days prior to my upgrade. Is there some way for me to figure out why SA is >> not doing its thing for me? >> >> >> -- Jake Colman Sr. Applications Developer Principia Partners LLC Harborside Financial Center 1001 Plaza Two Jersey City, NJ 07311 (201) 209-2467 www.principiapartners.com
