Franklin Maurer
Here is the info from spamassassin ...
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.8 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,AWL version=2.31 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.31 (devel $Id: SpamAssassin.pm,v 1.94.2.2 2002/06/20 17:20:29 hughescr Exp $) X-Spam-Report: 5.8 hits, 5 required; * 4.4 -- 'From' juno.com does not match 'Received' headers * 1.4 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment
So it seems it has more to do with juno than with CWSIV, or at least on mine.
Or more to do with using such an old version of Spamassassin. Here is the Spamassassin report I saw using the then current CVS head from cwsiv's message to which you are replying. As you can see it gets a healthy negative score, and that despite some of the 'negative generating' rules being removed from the CVS head (because some spammers were composing spam which triggered multiple 'non-spam' MUA rules, thus gaining very large negative scores which meant the spam being auto-learnt as non-spam by Bayes.) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_10,RCVD_IN_BONDEDSENDER, T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_01_10_20,T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_04_10_20, T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_08_10_20,T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_20_10_20 version=2.60-cvs X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-cvs (1.183-2003-03-27-exp) X-Spam-Report: ---- Start SpamAssassin results -8.50 points, 5 required; * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_20_10_20 * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_01_10_20 * -5.8 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 10 to 20% [score: 0.1243] * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_08_10_20 * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_04_10_20 * -5.7 -- RBL: Bonded sender, see http://www.bondedsender.org/referred.html [RBL check: found 69.113.9.217.query.bondedsender.org., type: 127.0.0.10] * 3.0 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment ---- End of SpamAssassin results