|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > spamassassin-users archives|
Benny Pedersen <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:54:59 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=1.0
>> Content analysis details: (-5.7 points, 1.0 required)
> hmm why diff scores now ?
because BAYES_50 on arrival changed to BAYES_00 on the rerun because of
a batch sa-learn on INBOX early in the morning. Like I said, arguably
wrong, but my issue and separate to the
> dkim forged can be solved with adsp no ?
I think this isn't really forged mail, so I'm not sure what you mean.
If the default rules mis-label dkim, then it seems they should be fixed,
but I have the impression that there is too much header munging going on
in the world for dkim to really work right.
> why not report it to dnswl ?
I will try, but I have not had much luck from reporting things to them.