Re: [bitfolk] spamd exclusion

Am indeed. :-) My local policy is set to 4, the classification header you see in there is what BitFolk's spamd has set as a threshold. The local spam handler here reads the score, not the classification. __ /ony ------- Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 9:04:46 AM, Mathew wrote: > 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. >> >>> >> 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(a)lists.bitfolk.com >> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users >>