On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:05 +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote: > On Mon, 03 Dec 2018, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 21:38 +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote: > > > I never got any patch of you for our anti spam measures, neither > > > do I > > > got something from Dave. > > > > > > Alex - Debian Listmaster > > > > Patch? I think you've identified the problem. > > > > A start would be to tighten or remove any out-of-the box changes > > made to > > spamassassin. Let's be clear, your current setup only set a score of > > 2 > > for an email that: > > > > 1) contained a shortened URL > > 2) was From: a freemail address > > 3) fails SPF for outlook.it > > 4) contains blacklisted received headers (ZEN, PBL, Barraacuda) > > 5) promotes Instagram to a technical laptop discussion list. > > > > That email should have scored at least a 5 or 6 in stock > > Spamassassin > > rules. > > We can give it a try, just for this list. But tbh, you have really no > idea how much spam we catch. That's good, and Thank you for that. > > > > Further, email headers show you have Amavis with a threshold score > > of 5.3 and Spamassasin with a threshold of 4.0. Which one will > > "win"? > > > > But really, you would be better served by just enabling some RBL > > checks in Spamassassin and getting rid of Amavis. > > Getting rid of amavis wouldn't change anything. > We would still call SA. Why involve Amavis then? If it's not being used, then it's just another potential point of failure in the mail process. -Jim P.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part