Re: Whitelist or BAYES?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 26.09.24 10:27, joe a wrote: >Maybe I should not ask this, but . . . > >A relatively innocuous member informational email from a local town Library (monthly) gets marked as spam as shown below. >The BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 values are something I am toying with for other reasons. Seems odd these should hit either one of those tests. > >So, on the one hand I can add them to whitelist and be done with it, or I can add >them to missed HAM for re-learning. > >Which is the best approach? so far, both. You may need to relearn multiple their (monthly) mails before it has effect. >X-Spam-Report: > * 4.1 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% > * [score: 1.0000] > * 5.0 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100% > * [score: 1.0000] You have raised BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 to huge values so I recommend to rethink that. > * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature > * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from > * author's domain you can safely welcomelist_from_dkim their mail address. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [email protected] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.