Actually, I've just checked your sample headers attachment and see that
the threshold is set to 5 already so howcome you are seeing them marked as
spam? Are you sure you've picked a representative sample?
Mathew
On Tue, October 15, 2013 9:01 am, Mathew Newton wrote:
> Whilst it's cheating a bit you could always try increasing your spam
> threshold to 5 as you may find it works around the problem without any
> unwanted side-effects as 'real' spam all too often scores way higher.
>
> This may prove more reliable than letting messages through based on the
> source address as courier firms are commonly spoofed to send malware
> disguised as delivery notices.
>
> Mathew
>
> On Tue, October 15, 2013 8:48 am, Tony Andersson wrote:
>> Not sure if the list allows for attachments, if so one example is
>> attached, and its corresponding headers.
>>
>> Looking at the spam classification in the headers:-
>> * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
>> no
>> * trust
>> * [65.55.34.153 listed in list.dnswl.org]
>> * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
>> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
>> * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
>> * 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
>> * 2.0 MIME_HEADER_CTYPE_ONLY 'Content-Type' found without required
>> MIME
>> * headers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>
