On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 03:14 +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On 15/06/07, Michael Sullivan <michael@???> wrote:
>
> > So why was one checked and the other not?
>
> You haven't shown this - you've shown that one was detected as spam
> and the other wasn't. Since your spam scanning acl has
>
> > spam = nobody
>
> it will only fire if the SA score is greater than the threshold value
> set in SA's config. If you want the headers added etc even when the
> message didn't score enough for SA to consider it as spam, you need
>
> > spam = nobody:true
>
I made this change, and now practically everything is being marked as
spam! Look at this:
Return-path: <gentoo-user
+bounces-65504-michael=espersunited.com@???>
Envelope-to: michael@???
Delivery-date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:32:21 -0500
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]
helo=robin.gentoo.org) by baby.espersunited.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user
+bounces-65504-michael=espersunited.com@???>) id 1Hzc8J-0002AU-AV
for michael@???; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:32:21 -0500
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5GHUOGL023483; Sat, 16
Jun 2007 17:30:24 GMT
Delivered-To: <gentoo-user@???>
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com
[64.233.166.179]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id
l5GHSFWc021103 for <gentoo-user@???>; Sat, 16 Jun 2007
17:28:16 GMT
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id p76so3041962pyb for
<gentoo-user@???>; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EHqTyXgo6GTwyIldB2UMhzk3zMHOnjIRSuKqageYpCJA+ciBrWBIXagOHoThfc1jD0UX0YW2UjGg52ZU0GvkhVerN3QPLSiEJx6gkWFzsiguts5tfo9N5R7xMJQiFMFboDj/ygp3FBPud1QsnEJIAyAwASf7d42+zA0aqv66DD8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tQZpYVsQHdX4V5PbO6NTOOmtU4XA1j+ziO4Bu+CfVFoIPFfz7+YQ5DC3GWpOTZ/IoQg1Ngz+MD9yRlwI9xpyXm18cKlfPddo60h9f+agvyUqC0OEakNenJPpwvJwC7UqpCZEVDKbML4/1Ctx8q4WGzt5cvO6E99/v183m+dFn/Q=
Received: by 10.65.23.7 with SMTP id a7mr6885231qbj.1182014894206; Sat,
16 Jun 2007 10:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.251.15 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:28:13 -0700
(PDT)
Message-ID: <8cd1ed20706161028t6802704eseceea2421570da08@???>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:28:14 +1200 (Sat, 12:28 CDT)
From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@???>
To: gentoo-user@???
In-Reply-To: <46740C9C.5020704@???>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <
mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <
mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <
mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <
mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@???
Reply-To: gentoo-user@???
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <46740C9C.5020704@???>
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-ACL-Warn: add_header = X-Spam_bar: /
X-ACL-Warn: add_header = X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running
on the system "baby.espersunited.com", has identified this incoming
email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this
so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If
you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for
details. Content preview: On 6/17/07, Steve [Gentoo]
<gentoo_steve@???> wrote: > I have some (say 100) discrete data
sequences sampling a single analogue > system with time-stamp data. > >
I would like to do some analysis on these signals to see if there are >
any interesting things that can be demonstrated - for example, if I >
could show a strong correlation in the signals between two times, but >
none at other times, I might be able to conclude that there was >
communication of some description, but only for a fixed duration. > > At
the moment I'm open minded about what kind of software I'd want to >
employ - and also about what I'd like to prove. Essentially, I'd like >
to analyse the data for features - then ask if they correspond with >
system events I'm already broadly aware about (rather than vice-versa.)
> > Can anyone point me in the right direction, please? [...] Content
analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name
description ---- ----------------------
-------------------------------------------------- 0.0 AWL
AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Subject: [*SPAM*] Re: [gentoo-user] Modelling software - free -
preferably easy to install under Gentoo.
X-Evolution-Source:
imap://michael@baby.espersunited.com/
A spam score of zero, and it's still being marked as spam. Both in my
ACL and my local.cf I say that mail should have a score of 5 before it's
marked as spam...
> Peter
> --
> Peter Bowyer
> Email: peter@???
>
