Spam not tagged - SpamAssassin

This is a discussion on Spam not tagged - SpamAssassin ; ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Spam not tagged

  1. Re: Spam not tagged


  2. Spam not tagged

    Dear list,

    Last week we've got some spam, bounced messages (a so called joe-job)
    not tagged as spam in the subject. "Regular" spam messages are tagged
    in the subject. In the headers I see that spamassassin gave the
    message a score of above 24:

    May 23 19:36:29 server2 amavis[16930]: (16930-08) SPAM-TAG, <> ->
    , Yes, score=24.347 tagged_abo
    ve=3 required=7 tests=[DCC_CHECK=1.37, DIGEST_MULTIPLE=0.001,
    HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.808, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHO
    RT_LINK_IMG_3=0.556, PYZOR_CHECK=2.834, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5,
    RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E
    8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=1.613,
    URIBL_BLACK=1.961, URIBL_JP_SURBL=2.857, URIBL
    _OB_SURBL=2.132, URIBL_SC_SURBL=2.523, URIBL_WS_SURBL=2.1]

    But why did SA not add *** SPAM *** to the subject?

    I'm using:
    spamassassin 3.2.3-0.volatile1
    amavisd-new 2.4.2-6.1


  3. Re: Spam not tagged

    At 05:48 26-05-2008, polloxx wrote:
    >Last week we've got some spam, bounced messages (a so called joe-job)
    >not tagged as spam in the subject. "Regular" spam messages are tagged
    >in the subject. In the headers I see that spamassassin gave the
    >message a score of above 24:
    >
    >May 23 19:36:29 server2 amavis[16930]: (16930-08) SPAM-TAG, <> ->
    >, Yes, score=24.347 tagged_abo
    >ve=3 required=7 tests=[DCC_CHECK=1.37, DIGEST_MULTIPLE=0.001,
    >HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.808, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHO
    >RT_LINK_IMG_3=0.556, PYZOR_CHECK=2.834, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5,
    >RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E
    >8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=1.613,
    >URIBL_BLACK=1.961, URIBL_JP_SURBL=2.857, URIBL
    >_OB_SURBL=2.132, URIBL_SC_SURBL=2.523, URIBL_WS_SURBL=2.1]
    >
    >But why did SA not add *** SPAM *** to the subject?


    Because you are using amavisd.

    Regards,
    -sm


  4. Re: Spam not tagged

    On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM, SM wrote:
    > At 05:48 26-05-2008, polloxx wrote:
    >>
    >> Last week we've got some spam, bounced messages (a so called joe-job)
    >> not tagged as spam in the subject. "Regular" spam messages are tagged
    >> in the subject. In the headers I see that spamassassin gave the
    >> message a score of above 24:
    >>
    >> May 23 19:36:29 server2 amavis[16930]: (16930-08) SPAM-TAG, <> ->
    >> , Yes, score=24.347 tagged_abo
    >> ve=3 required=7 tests=[DCC_CHECK=1.37, DIGEST_MULTIPLE=0.001,
    >> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.808, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHO
    >> RT_LINK_IMG_3=0.556, PYZOR_CHECK=2.834, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5,
    >> RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E
    >> 8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=1.613,
    >> URIBL_BLACK=1.961, URIBL_JP_SURBL=2.857, URIBL
    >> _OB_SURBL=2.132, URIBL_SC_SURBL=2.523, URIBL_WS_SURBL=2.1]
    >>
    >> But why did SA not add *** SPAM *** to the subject?

    >
    > Because you are using amavisd.
    >
    > Regards,
    > -sm
    >


    Can you explain your opinion a bit more?
    What would you suggest as an alternative?

    Thank you,
    P.


  5. Re: Spam not tagged

    polloxx wrote:
    > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM, SM wrote:
    >>>
    >>> But why did SA not add *** SPAM *** to the subject?

    >> Because you are using amavisd.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> -sm
    >>

    >
    > Can you explain your opinion a bit more?
    > What would you suggest as an alternative?
    >
    > Thank you,
    > P.


    You are running Amavis which calls the perl part of spamassassin itself.
    You are not running spamd, which is the program that adds the
    ***SPAM*** to the subject.

    You will want to try the amavis mailing list for more information.

    Regards,

    Rick


  6. Re: Spam not tagged

    At 12:48 26-05-2008, polloxx wrote:
    >Can you explain your opinion a bit more?
    >What would you suggest as an alternative?


    I'm not suggesting an alternative. You are not interacting directly
    with SpamAssassin. You are using Amavisd which invokes SpamAssassin
    modules, then perform rewrites, rejection, etc. based on the
    results. In the example you gave, the Subject header should have
    been tagged. As it wasn't, you can refer to the Amavisd
    documentation to determine whether you have put in the required directives.

    The following URL lists software which integrate SpamAssassin:

    http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSolutions

    If SpamAssassin is not working correctly with these software, the
    better place is ask for help is on their respective mailing list.

    Regards,
    -sm


  7. Re: Spam not tagged

    polloxx wrote:

    > >> But why did SA not add *** SPAM *** to the subject?

    > >
    > > Because you are using amavisd.

    >
    > Can you explain your opinion a bit more?
    > What would you suggest as an alternative?


    No need for an alternative; invoking SA via amavisd is perfectly fine. Just
    read:

    http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/#faq-spam

    and take the rest of this read to the amavisd mailing list if you have more
    questions.

    --
    Sahil Tandon


+ Reply to Thread