Am 20.09.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Thomas Barth:
I read that 5.0 is aggressive and suitable for single user setup,
conservative values are 8.0 or 11.0

depends on your glue, setup and bayes-training

many setups tag spam with 5.0 or 5.5 while the glue like a milter rejects spam above 8.0 points

I ve checked most of the mails recognized as spam. The lowest score was
8.6x so far.

that don't say anything as i recall from other posts your bayes is currently not working - the point is not what was detected but what slipped through and why or became a false-postive and why

Here is another mail from ...local. It definitely was spam with zip
attachment. Common is a sender address with digits.
<> -> <>, quarantine:
l/spam-lEHVGcheLkyq.gz, Message-ID:
<>, mail_id:
lEHVGcheLkyq, Hits: 19.118

May be I also should block sender adresses with more than 2 digits in
the name?

you should not block anything by single rules, that thread sounds like you are a absolute beginner and in that case you should refrain from blindly setup rules because you think you have found a spam sign somewehere

anyways, i can assure you that .local in a message-id is *nothing unusual* and frankly i had even to step back from reject from-headers with .local because a large part of mailadmins configure their systems as '' and in case of bounces (mailbox full as example) the envelope is a null-sender and the from-header postmaster@fool.local

well, and all that systems have a message-id ending with .local and if you want numbers - we would have rejected or tagged 981 *100% ham* messages with a message-id ending with .local and my users would have crucified me for such a setup

Reply via email to