Spamassassin works but not with MS

[Julian Field]

At 18:24 18/10/2002, you wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 09:52, Julian Field wrote:
> > At 17:20 18/10/2002, you wrote:
> > >Applying the same spam message to SA 2.43 gives the following header:
> > >
> > >X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-157.6, required
> > >4,AWL, FREE_INVESTMENT, FREE_MONEY, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,
> > >SPAM_PHRASE_03_05, US_DOLLARS_3)
> > >X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-17.8, required
> > >5,AWL)
> > >
> > >I would like to use AWL but it doesn't look like that's in the cards for
> > >me :-(
> >
> > As (a) you want to use AWL, (b) it appears to be using AWL, and (c) the
> > scores are negative (because of the high negative score from appearing in
> > the AWL), what's the problem?
> >
> > It seems to be working just as expected. Or am I missing something obvious?
>
>No, but I might be ;-) My understanding of white lists is that they
>contain real addresses which should not be considered as spam. The
>message of the header above is clearly spam but is not marked as such.
>Some how I am confusing the purpose of AWL.
>
>The other issue I have is that I'm forwarding spam from another server
>which has almost the identical setup as the problem server (same version
>of MS, SA, Perl and OS). The mailscanner.conf files for both machines
>are identical. The "good" machine tagged the above message as spam and
>had the following header portion:

I'm not too well up on the AWL implementation within SpamAssassin, but it
possibly depends at least partly on the IP address of the SMTP client that
sent the message to your SMTP server. If you are forwarding from another
server, clearly the client IP address will be different which will affect
the behaviour.

--
Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
                             Southampton SO17 1BJ