This could be a DNS problem returning a .2 (positive response) for all
queries.

what DNS are you using for your queries?




On 7/20/2008 4:03 PM, Yves Goergen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just received an e-mail with the following report:
>
>> X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details:
>> 0.0 URIBL_RED Contains an URL listed in the URIBL
>> redlist
>> [URIs: unclassified.de]
>> 0.2 URIBL_GREY Contains an URL listed in the URIBL
>> greylist
>> [URIs: unclassified.de]
>> 3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL
>> blacklist
>> [URIs: unclassified.de]
>> 5.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
>> [botnet0.8,ip=(...)]
>> 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
>> [89.183.23.141 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
>> -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0
>> to 1%
>> [score: 0.0000]
>> 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with
>> dynamic-looking rDNS
>> -1.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto
>> white-list

>
> (...) contains information about the sending host that should not matter
> here.
>
> The message is a reply to a message from me. It contains my text quoted,
> complete with my previous signature that also has the link to
> http://unclassified.de. I was a bit surprised about the high spam score
> of 5.0 and looked at the report. It says that "unclassified.de" is on
> URIBL. I could not believe that and checked in at their site. But they
> say it is *not* on the list. So what happened here? How can SA (3.2.4)
> give spam points for a problem that is completely wrong?
>