Re: [squid-users] *****SPAM***** error when starting squid

In message <mid+200302261746.h1QHkHW849566@dogberry.rutgers.edu> (on 26
February 2003 12:46:16 -0500), easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith)
wrote:
>In message <3E5CD9AF.2F224402@imec.be> (on 26 February 2003 16:13:51
>+0100), marc.elsen@imec.be (Marc Elsen) wrote:
>>
>>
>>deny wrote:
>>>
>>> SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ----------------------
>>> SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
>>> SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
>>> SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
>>> SPAM:
>>> SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.00 hits, 5 required)
>>> SPAM: X_ACCEPT_LANG (-0.4 points) Found a X-Accept-Language header
>>> SPAM: TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL (2.1 points) To: repeats address as real name
>>> SPAM: USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM (1.0 points) X-Mailer header indicates a non-spam MUA (Netscape)
>>> SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 (0.6 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 00 to 01 (low)
>>> SPAM: DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 (1.7 points) Date: is 6 to 12 hours after Received: date
>>> SPAM:
>>> SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results ---------------------
>>
>> ??? Any particular reason for sharing these 'Egyptian body headers'
>>with the
>> whole list.
>
>These are from the list going through a rather out-of-date version of
>SpamAssassin, including the distinct bug of that USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM
>should have been a negative score. I suggest updating to 2.43 at the
>minimum.

Correction: 2.44, especially if using spamd; 2.50 is also an option,
although I'm not sure if I would advise using the bayes code yet with a
mailing list (database lock contention).

            -Allen

-- 
Allen Smith                       http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/
February 1, 2003                               Space Shuttle Columbia
Ad Astra Per Aspera                     To The Stars Through Asperity