Spam detection software, running on the system "rat.iptel.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:16:01PM +0200, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > As I can see, you get better and better with openser, maybe you can get > some training so you will be able to configure and tune it properly to > fit your needs and get the appropriate results (googling will reveal > some doing trainings for openser). So which are right, these ones, the > previous ones or the next testing results? You tested something, which > (I suppose) you are very familiar with (ser), against something that you > do not know properly to configure. There are some internals that differ > a lot and may have quite a lot of performance impact. [...] Content analysis details: (6.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 3.2 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records 2.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [62.245.93.50 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.6 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [<http://dsbl.org/listing?62.245.93.50>] 1.9 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP [62.245.93.50 listed in combined.njabl.org] -1.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list