SpamAssassin not working?

[Markarian421]

I had several spam messages in my inbox this morning and I wondered where they were coming from and how they were getting through spamcop. In the headers I see:

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on blade5

X-spam-Level:

X-spam-Status: hits=0.0 tests=none version=3.2.4

Is that still on? Thanks.

[agsteele]

I had several spam messages in my inbox this morning and I wondered where they were coming from and how they were getting through spamcop. In the headers I see:

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on blade5

X-spam-Level:

X-spam-Status: hits=0.0 tests=none version=3.2.4

Is that still on?

That would be an Email service question but, as far as I can tell, SpamAssassin still working just fine. For some reasons the messages in question are not triggering the SA filters - but that's not so unusual.

No doubt a moderator will move this thread to the correct location soon

Andrew

[Wazoo]

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on blade5

X-spam-Level:

Based on past data, this would tend to be the critical line, pointing to 'blade5' as the server with a possible issue. However, missing thus far is the 'me too' traffic here and in the newsgroups from others making the same complaint/query.

A Tracking URL would allow some research by others on what happened. For instance, do your samples also include yet another line stating that the message was 'whitelisted' ..????? This would be one of the most obvious reasons why SpamAssassin wouldn't have been triggered/invoked/whatever.

And yes ... moved to the SpamCop E-mail System & Accounts Forum section with this post.

[DavidT]

The SA Blade5 seems to be working just fine...I just scanned through my recent messages. Here's one from yesterday:

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on blade5

X-spam-Level: *

X-spam-Status: hits=1.4 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 version=3.2.4

The "hits" have to rise above 1.0 in order for there to be any asterisks on the "X-spam-Level:" line. The first asterisk appears at 1.1, then you get a second at 2.0, etc.

I don't think there's anything wrong at the moment.

DT

[daryn]

I'll "me too" this to increase profile

I had 58 obvious spams get through today, very unusual.

and lots and lots of "message returned" type...

I think something broke

[Wazoo]

I'll "me too" this to increase profile

I had 58 obvious spams get through today, very unusual.

and lots and lots of "message returned" type...

I think something broke

Yet, no Tracking URLs of any of these alleged failures ......??????

[michaelanglo]

Yet, no Tracking URLs of any of these alleged failures ......??????

Here's one of dozens that match daryn's post - viz X-spam-Status: hits=0.0

Here is your TRACKING URL -

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1780944820z9...33c2456e3bd34ez

I don't in fact believe there is any fault on any server, everything is consistant with every SA copy being identical and working fine, just not tuned to find anything wrong with the content.

The obvious enhancement here is to let users have the option of specifying Cyrillic content as spam, perhaps by a "pseudo-blacklist" or having more than one SA profile.

[Wazoo]

Here is your TRACKING URL -

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1780944820z9...33c2456e3bd34ez

Thanks for that information.

I don't in fact believe there is any fault on any server, everything is consistant with every SA copy being identical and working fine, just not tuned to find anything wrong with the content.

Hard to argue about that description.

The obvious enhancement here is to let users have the option of specifying Cyrillic content as spam, perhaps by a "pseudo-blacklist" or having more than one SA profile.

Not the same action, I know, but .... the cyrillic 'problem' has a solution offered as a part of using Filters. A Search for "koi8-r" should return some posts made within the last few months that talk about composing a Filter Rule dealing with Body Content.

Bottom line: I agree with your suggested scenario, also going with other users showing/reporting that Spamassassin is actually working on other spam, so normally, this Topic would be marked as Resolved (based on the original query) .... However, we are all waiting for the Topic starter to make an appearance and say something about the responses provided.

[agsteele]

My feeling has been for sometime that the SC Email SpamAssassin filters are not at the cutting edge of the latest spam content.

There are certain spam Emails that always sail right through SA and yet, to a human eye, are clearly spam. But the writers of the junk are on-the-ball about the standard SA filters and have tuned their content to slip through.

I rely on the reporting/block list process to help me identify these.

Tweaking the filters is a full-time job for folk who have full-time jobs doing something else

Andrew