Simon Perreault simon.perreault at
Wed Feb 19 14:46:55 UTC 2014

Daniel is correct, he gets a cookie! The the others: please learn to
recognize when you have no clue.

We've been having the same problem here for the last three days. I
tracked it down to BAYES_999. Glad to see other people are suffering as
much as I am. :)


Le 2014-02-19 01:46, Daniel Staal a écrit :
> --As of February 19, 2014 9:52:57 AM +0800, Randy Bush is alleged to
> have said:
>> in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
>> spamassassin to my users and to me.  see appended for example.  not
>> all has dkim.
>> clue?
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
> The spamassassin list has been tracking an issue where a new rule made
> it out of the testbox accidentally, which lowers scores on a lot of
> spam.  It wasn't in the sample you provided, but the rule name is
> BAYES_999 - it catches mail that the bayes filter thinks is 99.9-100%
> sure to be spam.  As it got promoted prematurely, it's showing with a
> score of 1.0.  (The default.)  It's probably a part of your problem.
> A fix should be in the rules update today or tomorrow - or you can
> rescore it to the same as BAYES_99 (someplace in the 3 range by default,
> I believe).  That's what used to catch that mail: it used to mean
> 99-100%, and now means 99-99.9%.
> More info can be found in the mailing list archives for the spamassassin
> list.
> Daniel T. Staal

DTN made easy, lean, and smart -->
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        -->
STUN/TURN server               -->

More information about the NANOG mailing list