Re: [mailop] Isn't SpamEatingMonkey's SEM-URI broken?

[Mathieu via mailop]

Still nothing, no feedback at all, from SpamEatingMonkey :-(

On 10/07/2023 17:12, Mathieu via mailop wrote:
I feel a bit desperate, because my domain has SPF "-all", and all emails 
are DKIM signed. I don't know what I can do better to stop being listed 
again and again.


On a suggestion from Slavko, I changed the DMARC policy from `p=none` to 
`p=quarantine`, but I still got listed 4 times in 3 days. I tried 
`p=reject` yesterday, but without much hope...



At least Rspamd is using it by default:
   https://rspamd.com/doc/modules/rbl.html


I opened an issue to discuss about it:
  https://github.com/rspamd/rspamd/issues/4544
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Isn't SpamEatingMonkey's SEM-URI broken?

[Mathieu via mailop]

Thankfully, it seems there is a kind of "Whitelisted by policy":
  https://spameatingmonkey.com/lookup/gmail.com
"This is a normal email service, don't you know gmail?" :-D
  https://spameatingmonkey.com/lookup/gandi.net
With an evidence looking exactly like mines.
  https://spameatingmonkey.com/lookup/outlook.com
  https://spameatingmonkey.com/lookup/spameatingmonkey.com

Now the question is, why these domains, and how to apply?

Or, as it looks like, was it possible only in July, 2019?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Isn't SpamEatingMonkey's SEM-URI broken?

[Mathieu via mailop]

On 10/07/2023 20:01, Slavko via mailop wrote:

Sources are on github, any one can see that. It adds 3,5 score by
default, while relative high, not significant itself and requires other
marks. 3,5 is not enough to mark message as SPAM even with
default thresholds, on my site 10 is required for that.


Actually, it adds 3.5 *by scope*. And it has 3 scopes: url, email and 
dkim. Which eventually sum up to 10.5... You would reject our messages.

  SEM_URIBL (7) [example.com:url,example.com:email]
  SEM_URIBL (10.5) [example.com:url,example.com:email,example.com:dkim]


Anyway, if this RBL is really as bad, it is not worth to use it and
would be great to get evidence from others too.


Sure. I can't believe, like Jarland said, that SEM would tag domains so 
simply!


By the way, as expected, we got listed again :-(

Some "evidences":


Received: from dltrngr.net ([240e:390:5d03:af1f:215:383:da23:52d])
by spameatingmonkey (spamtrap) with SMTP id 
11AEBA66-904E-4BEB-A4AF-C03AF2E0B406.1
envelope-from ;
Tue, 11 Jul 2023 05:42:16 +



Received: from zqxd.com ([240e:390:5d03:978f:215:329:2a23:52d])
by spameatingmonkey (spamtrap) with SMTP id 
22458D54-2F08-4D56-A805-4A5EBF576198.1
envelope-from ;
Tue, 11 Jul 2023 03:45:24 +



Received: from uveuqmfh.org ([240e:390:5d03:95cc:215:3bb:623:52d])
by spameatingmonkey (spamtrap) with SMTP id 
AE4E9276-6718-4FDB-8CCB-C578F1F7F76A.1
envelope-from ;
Tue, 11 Jul 2023 02:13:54 +


If somebody from SEM is reading this, it would be easy for him/her to 
find out the domain I'm talking about. And maybe help us to understand 
what SEM is doing?

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop