"Doug Traylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> As an admin, how do you notice these things? Do you verify the spam >> reports that your users send in, or are you noticing them in your own >> account(s)? <snip> >> How did you realize that this was an issue for you? > > I cc all spam to an account I manage. I have MTA rules sort the spam > based on "assp spam reason" and in some cases also by "assp intended for" > for bayesian only spam. Then I use a plain text email reader to flip > through the spams that are not bayesian to make sure nothing bad is > happening and I flip through the bayesian emails to see if something > obvious is getting through that I can block with a regex. Every so often > I delete all the spams I have collected as the folders tend to get large > fast.
Very cool. Thanks for the tip. Right now, I'm just collecting everything in a simple email inbox, and flipping through them that way. Are you still running test mode for checks other than Bayesian? If not, wouldn't bayesian be the only email that you would get as ASSP spam reason? Wouldn't all the rest be rejected at source? Or do those still get copied over into the ccAllSpam address? Do you know if there is a list somewhere (wiki, docs, archives), of all the different reasons that ASSP uses to flag spam? So far, I have found the following, but would love to compile a complete list. X-Assp-Spam-Reason: Has spam address X-Assp-Spam-Reason: Validate Sender: Invalid HELO Format 'node9' X-Assp-Spam-Reason: Bayesian spam X-Assp-Spam-Reason: Validate Sender: PTR missing X-Assp-Spam-Reason: BombRe: 'src=3D"cid:000d01c2fa73$e21e8830$91853959@migint"' X-Assp-Spam-Reason: Validate Sender: missing MX/A record X-Assp-Spam-Reason: Failed RBL checks I am sure there must be more. One strange / concerning thing that I am noticing, and was wondering if you saw similar, is that the majority of my spam catches are all Bayesian (probably close to 90%). Which concerns me that these aren't being caught elsewhere prior. If perhaps my settings are too lenient elsewhere. For example, in 3K emails, only 3 have failed RBL checks, but 166 are caught on Bayesian. Do you also find that you need to sift through your error reports (both spam, and notspam) to see if users are mis-reporting email? Thanks! Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
