<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
mso-believe-normal-left:yes;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><![if mso 9]><style>p.MsoNormal
{margin-left:3.0pt;}
</style><![endif]><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='margin-left:3.0pt;margin-top:3.0pt;margin-right:3.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Glad the value setting is helping. I agree with you that continued spam processing would be beneficial, although it is probably more efficient to just deep-six the message once it’s determined it’s spam. For me, with just a few thousand messages per day it isn’t a problem. If I was moving millions of mail messages it might be better to continue the current action. What would be best is to have a toggle so the admin can decide whether they want mark it as spam and be done or continue further processing for more granular evaluation and tweaking.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Hopefully the folks that are maintaining MailScanner can take this up. I appreciate what they do but know they’re busy with day jobs and such. I miss Jules...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#1F497D'> ...Kevin<br>--<br>Kevin Miller<br>Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.<br>155 South Seward Street<br>Juneau, Alaska 99801<br>Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500<br>Registered Linux User No: 307357</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-bounces@lists.mailscanner.info] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Shawn Iverson<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 27, 2014 6:12 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'MailScanner discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: Treat Invalid Watermarks with No Sender as Spam<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>Setting to a low score has helped immensely. Messages are still getting caught by the other algorithms while allowing legit emails through.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>I will make a feature request, though.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>It appears in the MailScanner code that when Treat Invalid Watermarks with No Sender As Spam equals anything spam or higher, further rule processing is halted. This is taking precedence over whitelisting/blacklisting and probably should not.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>Shawn Iverson<br>Rush County Schools<br>District Technology Coordinator<br><a href="mailto:iversons@rushville.k12.in.us">iversons@rushville.k12.in.us</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>>>> "Shawn Iverson" <<a href="mailto:IversonS@rushville.k12.in.us">IversonS@rushville.k12.in.us</a>> 2/26/2014 7:02 PM >>><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>Just set a numeric...will observe and see what happens.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>Shawn Iverson<br>Rush County Schools<br>District Technology Coordinator<br><a href="mailto:iversons@rushville.k12.in.us">iversons@rushville.k12.in.us</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'>>>> Kevin Miller <<a href="mailto:Kevin_Miller@ci.juneau.ak.us">Kevin_Miller@ci.juneau.ak.us</a>> 2/26/2014 6:48 PM >>><br>> When I disable the Treat Invalid Watermarks With No Sender as Spam, the messages do pass through just fine.<br><br>What happens when you assign it a numeric value?<br><br>...Kevin<br>--<br>Kevin Miller<br>Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.<br>155 South Seward Street<br>Juneau, Alaska 99801<br>Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500<br>Registered Linux User No: 307357 <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI","sans-serif"'><br>-- <br>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <br><a href="http://www.efa-project.org"><b>E.F.A. Project</b></a>, and is believed to be clean. <br>-- <br>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <br><a href="http://www.efa-project.org"><b>E.F.A. Project</b></a>, and is believed to be clean. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>