I'm really needing some help figuring this out...
Setup:
- I have watermarking enabled in MS 4.70.7 (just upgraded to ensure I got all the latest watermarking bug fixes in this release).
- Instead of "spam" to the "Treat Invalid Watermarks With No Sender as Spam", I have a value of "5", which according to the text is simply supposed to add 5.0 points to the SpamAssassin score. Snippet: "If it is set to a number, then that is added to the message's spam score and its spam status is updated accordingly."
Watermarking appears to be working great & SpamAssassin is still running its checks & assigning scores, BUT the message is still being automatically marked as *SPAM*, despite the final SA score -- which is contrary to the setting described above.
For example, a message normally scoring -12 points will get the +5 points added for failing the watermark test, to arrive at a final score of -7, BUT the e-mail is still marked as spam & renamed to *SPAM* like all my other spam, even though it is well below my spam threshold of 5.0 points to be considered spam.
In other strange cases, the message is given a SA score (such as -7), but the the message headers report that checks were not run & MailWatch only shows the watermark rule as being hit. HOWEVER, the report that's included in the e-mail (where the original message is an attachment) DOES have the full SA report in it.
Ideas?
Thanks in advance,
Matt
Watermarking Bug?
Hi Matt,
Watermarking is not a feature we enable by default or have tested much, partly because, as you mention, until recently there have been a number of bugs. I would suggest checking the MailScanner mailing list archives for help with your issues and/or posting to the list if you're unable to find a solution.
Regards,
Sarah
Watermarking is not a feature we enable by default or have tested much, partly because, as you mention, until recently there have been a number of bugs. I would suggest checking the MailScanner mailing list archives for help with your issues and/or posting to the list if you're unable to find a solution.
Regards,
Sarah