-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I tried to add as a "trusted_network" the ip for the iem.whatever.at server which appears in all messages, but i found again another message from the PD in the spam directory (it might be that the two operations overlapped for a second, so i'll see later if it really worked).
One thing the spamassasin seems not to like at all (which is a very fixable detail, by the sender of course),it is when the sender computer has a wrong time, usually in the future, compared with the *real* universal time (considering the obvious adjustment with different timezones) at the moment of sending it.
Anyway here there is the header and the reason that made spamassasin unhappy... [below this message another one with some different explanation]
Return-Path: pd-list-bounces@iem.at X-Original-To: marco@localhost Delivered-To: marco@localhost Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id C571C2582ED for marco@localhost; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:46:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.3.4) for marco@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:46:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from puredata.info (inf182.kug.ac.at [193.170.191.182]) by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k7NDu2O29554; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:56:02 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=puredata.info) by puredata.info with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GFtAR-0002AK-81; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:53:18 +0200 Received: from iem.kug.ac.at ([193.170.191.180] helo=mail.iem.at) by puredata.info with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GFtAJ-0002AA-Cz for pd-list@puredata.info; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:53:12 +0200 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]) by mail.iem.at with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from timvets@gmail.com) id 1GFtBH-0003Je-St for pd-list@iem.at; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:54:23 +0200 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o67so206294pye for pd-list@iem.at; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:54:06 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
+b=U/qpFi08VRC+TlG87re84z6qZ5iHBSgRPoeSGS/1qrm9T2XBFb/biTUX8U3ZL8MNRpMvmrK6nHGbR6xZqTDfMWI51fdBHOAGjfmd8jRu/y +rJ9GOZuhHDEF2H52+joFDut+fZx1dMSGg6gt4CJttd727GTYZkj0N1B3YxP4mWOZo= Received: by 10.35.111.14 with SMTP id o14mr567830pym; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content analysis details: (6.6 points, 3.0 required)
pts rule name description
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO 1.4 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) [SPF failed: ] 2.4 SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (softfail) [SPF failed: ] 1.3 INFO_TLD URI: Contains an URL in the INFO top-level domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4671] 1.4 HTML_10_20 BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML
****************************THIS IS THE SECOND MESSAGE****************
X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on amarone X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50, DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,INFO_TLD,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.4
Content analysis details: (4.4 points, 3.0 required)
pts rule name description
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
2.8 DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours after Received: date 1.3 INFO_TLD URI: Contains an URL in the INFO top-level domain 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
24/08/2006 alle 21:34:40, +0200, zmoelnig@iem.at [AKA zmoelnig] ha scritto/escribió/wrote: | Zitat von carmen _@whats-your.name: | | >On Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 10:59:08AM -0400, Marco Trevisani wrote: | >> | >>Dear all, | >> | >>recently happened that my mailer in "collaboration" with spamassassin | >>decided to classify some of the messages to the PD list as "spam" and, | >>weird, not even as "maybe-spam" , simply and directly as spam. Of course | >>none of them were spam, they were really messages to the list. | >>I'm wondering if i'm the only one having this problem here... | | it would be good to know which spamassassin-tests have added enough | points to classify which emails as spam. | the only problem i recently had, was thunderbird thinking hcs's | autobuild info mails being scam, due to the direct use of IP-addresses. | | > | >procmail rules seem to follow the 'first match' rule. so just put | >your PD match above your spam matches. like this: | > | | they don't "seem to" follow. | you tell a procmail rule whether processing should stop when a certain | rule matches or whether it should go on. | ~> man procmailrc | | mfg.asd.r | IOhannes
Content-Description: Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel | pub 1024D/FEB276F4 2006-02-06 IOhannes m zmoelnig (gpg-key at iem) zmoelnig@iem.at | sub 2048g/9B4C4D62 2006-02-06 [expires: 2011-02-05]
| _______________________________________________ | PD-list@iem.at mailing list | UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
thanks, marco