On 6/22/2023 6:29 AM, Simon Wilson via users wrote:
How do people work around this? I've trained Bayes, and that is
applying a -ve offset as expected, but they still end up at over 7.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.215 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
tests=[BASE64_LENGTH_78_79=0.1,
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 23:05 AEST, Bill Cole
wrote:
On 2023-06-22 at 06:29:53 UTC-0400 (Thu, 22 Jun 2023 20:29:53 +1000)
Simon Wilson via users
is rumored to have said:
> I find most DMARC reports I receive are flagged as spam by SA.
>
> How do people work around this? I've trained
On 2023-06-22 at 06:29:53 UTC-0400 (Thu, 22 Jun 2023 20:29:53 +1000)
Simon Wilson via users
is rumored to have said:
I find most DMARC reports I receive are flagged as spam by SA.
How do people work around this? I've trained Bayes, and that is
applying a -ve offset as expected, but they
submitters? I looked at a bunch of my reports and they are all MIME_GOOD.
That one was from microsoft.
Ok, I see.
It seems to me that BASE64_LENGTH_79_INF is wrong. It is probably
motivated by RFC5322's "SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding
the CRLF". My Microsoft reports
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 20:37 AEST, Damian wrote:
I find most DMARC reports I receive are flagged as spam by SA.> Which
submitters? I looked at a bunch of my reports and they are all MIME_GOOD.
That one was from microsoft.
--
Simon Wilson
M: 0400 121 116
I find most DMARC reports I receive are flagged as spam by SA.
Which submitters? I looked at a bunch of my reports and they are all
MIME_GOOD.
I find most DMARC reports I receive are flagged as spam by SA.
How do people work around this? I've trained Bayes, and that is applying a -ve
offset as expected, but they still end up at over 7.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.215 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
