Re: Indicating filtered spam?
And I apologise for inconvinience this filter failure caused. Spamassassin is still funky at some points like encodings and bayesian. Its doublefunky when its system wide. But still its my mistake. Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 03:44:43PM +0300, Alexander Lyamin wrote: > Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 04:14:10PM +0300, Oleg Drokin wrote: > > Hello! > > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 02:12:29PM +0100, Szabolcs Szasz wrote: > > > Wouldn' it be better to put (back? was it there? I can't > > > recall) to the Subject header an indication for filtered > > > spam? > > > The fact that now there is Spamassasin at work, actually > > > changes the behavior of my organic brain-embedded spam filter > > > so that I now find myself opening mails I had been deleting > > > before. > > > > Seems our filter that directs spam to /dev/null have broke again. > > I'll see what can be done with it. > > its a bug in 822header util from DJB. > i clearly identified it, and now seems like i have to FIX it. > sometimes it fails to parse for X-Spam correctly :( > > > > -- > "Cache remedies via multi-variable logic shorts will leave you crying."(cl) > Lex Lyamin -- "Cache remedies via multi-variable logic shorts will leave you crying."(cl) Lex Lyamin
Re: Indicating filtered spam?
Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 04:14:10PM +0300, Oleg Drokin wrote: > Hello! > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 02:12:29PM +0100, Szabolcs Szasz wrote: > > Wouldn' it be better to put (back? was it there? I can't > > recall) to the Subject header an indication for filtered > > spam? > > The fact that now there is Spamassasin at work, actually > > changes the behavior of my organic brain-embedded spam filter > > so that I now find myself opening mails I had been deleting > > before. > > Seems our filter that directs spam to /dev/null have broke again. > I'll see what can be done with it. its a bug in 822header util from DJB. i clearly identified it, and now seems like i have to FIX it. sometimes it fails to parse for X-Spam correctly :( -- "Cache remedies via multi-variable logic shorts will leave you crying."(cl) Lex Lyamin
Re: Indicating filtered spam?
Hello! On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 02:12:29PM +0100, Szabolcs Szasz wrote: > Wouldn' it be better to put (back? was it there? I can't > recall) to the Subject header an indication for filtered > spam? > The fact that now there is Spamassasin at work, actually > changes the behavior of my organic brain-embedded spam filter > so that I now find myself opening mails I had been deleting > before. Seems our filter that directs spam to /dev/null have broke again. I'll see what can be done with it. Bye, Oleg
Indicating filtered spam?
Hi, Wouldn' it be better to put (back? was it there? I can't recall) to the Subject header an indication for filtered spam? The fact that now there is Spamassasin at work, actually changes the behavior of my organic brain-embedded spam filter so that I now find myself opening mails I had been deleting before. Thanks, Sab - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 2003. február 22. 17:32 Subject: Re: your request 0310fzF-7 > This mail is probably spam. The original message has been attached > along with this report, so you can recognize or block similar unwanted > mail in future. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. > > Content preview: URI:http://www.quickleads.bz/mort/v/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Lowest Rate In Thirty Years Rates as low as 5.25% won't stay this low forever [...] > > Content analysis details: (15.30 points, 5 required) > NO_REAL_NAME (1.3 points) From: does not include a real name > SUBJ_HAS_SPACES(3.0 points) Subject contains lots of white space > TRACKER_ID (1.4 points) BODY: Incorporates a tracking ID number > HTML_WEB_BUGS (0.2 points) BODY: Image tag with an ID code to identify you > HTML_80_90 (1.0 points) BODY: Message is 80% to 90% HTML > HTML_MESSAGE (0.0 points) BODY: HTML included in message > HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04 (1.0 points) BODY: HTML has images with 200-400 bytes of words > HTML_JAVASCRIPT(0.2 points) BODY: JavaScript code > BASE64_ENC_TEXT(1.4 points) RAW: Message text disguised using base-64 encoding > MSGID_OUTLOOK_TIME (1.0 points) Message-Id is fake (in Outlook Express format) > SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID (0.8 points) Subject contains a unique ID > DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06 (1.4 points) Date: is 3 to 6 hours after Received: date > MISSING_MIMEOLE(0.5 points) Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE > FORGED_MUA_AOL (1.0 points) Forged mail pretending to be from AOL > MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME (1.1 points) Message looks like Outlook, but isn't > > The original message did not contain plain text, and may be unsafe to > open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, > or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view > it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor. > >
