Treat Invalid Watermarks with No Sender as Spam
IversonS at rushville.k12.in.us
Wed Feb 26 22:37:51 GMT 2014
Yep, NAI is zones.com
My X headers are X-Rushville but not there...
Here's the full message in the quarantine at the filesystem level...
Still scratching my head on this one.
When I disable the Treat Invalid Watermarks With No Sender as Spam, the messages do pass through just fine.
Rush County Schools
District Technology Coordinator
iversons at rushville.k12.in.us
>>> Kevin Miller <Kevin_Miller at ci.juneau.ak.us> 2/26/2014 1:42 PM >>>
Well, that's a curious thing. The delivery report you posted had these for spam reporting:
X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered
I don't' know if they're yours or zone.com's. I think the latter. With what you posted there aren't any spam reports.
I implemented watermarks a year or two ago, but being cautious, and wanting to watch it a bit first, had the action set to nothing and forgot to every go back and set it to something else. Fat lot of good that did me! <g>
After you posted I set it to "1" on my primary mx gateway, and "spam" on my backup gateways. I noticed in my reports (via MailWatch) that I would get this:
addressno watermark or sender
but no other spam scores. The first score above is from a legitimate message, the other from one that's clearly spam. The other spam messages all seem to have similar scores in the high 30s or low 40s. I'm only adding one point on this gateway, so the other 39.99 must have been from other spam checks but why they're not listed I don't know. I'm thinking at this point that perhaps your problem isn't the watermarking, but some other spam scores that are triggered, but don't show up in the spam report. I don't think MailScanner is assigning a default score of 10 to the messages.
The trick is to figure out how to see the rest of the spam report.
This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MailScanner