Hi,
Andy Smith wrote:
> [...] I argue that at present it
> isn't a good idea to just reject all DKIM failures like OP's mailbox
> provider appears to be doing.
Just for the records:
The mails in question don't get rejected but rather marked as spam
and then get delivered.
The currently best
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 02:16:07AM +, Tim Woodall wrote:
> And some dkim seems setup with the intention that it should not be used
> for mailinglusts:
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=dow.land;
> s=20210720;
>
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> --- sninp ---
>
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
> smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
> dkim=fail
On 07/03/2024 21:04, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
--- sninp ---
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
dkim=fail
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> --- sninp ---
>
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
> smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
> dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed"
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Hi all,
> I believe, I found the reason, why mails are marked as spam and others not.
>
> All spam mails shjow this entry in the header:
>
> --- sninp ---
>
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
>
Hi all,
I believe, I found the reason, why mails are marked as spam and others not.
All spam mails shjow this entry in the header:
--- sninp ---
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
Hans wrote:
> HI Brad,
>
> I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly
> mail was marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail
> again is marked as spam.
>
> We know, there is nothing unusual with your mail, but it is again
> marked as spam. Even, when
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:36:25 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly
>mail was marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail
>again is marked as spam.
Spam/ham training is not, IME, a single shot affair. However, as
HI Brad,
I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly mail was
marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail again is marked
as spam.
We know, there is nothing unusual with your mail, but it is again marked as
spam. Even, when I explicity marked your
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 13:53:49 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>It should be well trained
Spam training is an ongoing process
>But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to
>another, although I had changed nothing.
because the spam changes. What's coming now is
Hans (12024-03-06):
> I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained
> and
> almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
Hi.
It is probably not the reason for you problem now, but it is important
to note that in the “several years” since your spam
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> Re: *SPAM* Re: Spam from the list?
> In-Reply-To: <20240306112253.55e25...@earth.stargate.org.uk>
referring the mail
> > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:22:53 +
> > From: Brad Rogers
> > Message-ID: <20240306112253.55e25...@earth.stargate
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Hi Brad,
>
> I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained
> and
> almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
>
> But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to
>
Hi Brad,
I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained and
almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to another,
although I had changed nothing.
And weired: It happened only
Hans wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > you perhaps subscribed to one of the "Resent-*" lists ?
> >
> Not as far as I know.
>
> > > Subject: *SPAM* Bug#1065537: ITP: bleak-retry-connector --
> > > Connector for Bleak Clients that handles transient connection
> > > failures
> >
> > The mark
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 11:19:27 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>Does one see any reason, why this is considered as spam???
Further to what Thomas says; You haven't told your spam filtering that
it's ham. If you don't train your spam filters, it's never going to get
any better at detecting what
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> I changed nothing and suddenly many mails from debian-user
> (but not all, only some) are recognized as spam.
But the one you posted here did not come from debian-user.
So maybe what changed is an inadverted subscription to one of
debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
Am Mittwoch, 6. März 2024, 12:10:57 CET schrieb Dan Ritter:
> >
> > X-Spam-Flag: YES
> >
> > X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
>
> What sets these two headers?
>
I do not know. So I asked on this list.
What I believe is, that the X-Spam-Flag: YES is set somehow on the way and as
spamassin is looking at
Hi Thomas,
> you perhaps subscribed to one of the "Resent-*" lists ?
>
Not as far as I know.
> > Subject: *SPAM* Bug#1065537: ITP: bleak-retry-connector --
> > Connector for Bleak Clients that handles transient connection failures
>
> The mark "*SPAM*" does not appear in the
Hans wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
> spam than before. Something must have changed.
>
> I examined the header of the mails, but did not see any unusual.
>
> Below I send the header of an example o
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
> spam than before.
> [...]
> Below I send the header of an example of such a mail, maybe you can see the
> reason?
The message does not look like it came to you via debian-user
Hi folks,
during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
spam than before. Something must have changed.
I examined the header of the mails, but did not see any unusual.
Below I send the header of an example of such a mail, maybe you can see the
reason?
On my
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:06:00PM -0500, c. marlow wrote:
What the heck
Sorry I'm new to the whole group email / NEWSGROUP thing.
It was spam. Sometimes it gets through the filters. Best course of
action is to not reply to it, and *never* quote it.
Cheers,
Tom
--
Support your local
Am Freitag, 23. September 2011 schrieb Brad Rogers:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:54:02 + (UTC)
Walter Hurry walterhu...@lavabit.com wrote:
Hello Walter,
And by the way, I am not impressed with the SpamAssassin setup at
liszt.debian.org
It got turned off once, accidentally. Spam came
through at a rate of
hundreds per day. Frankly, I'm surprised we don't see more spam here.
Of course, you could exercise the ultimate sanction.
Or otherwise said:
I usually only see list spam when someone replies to it.
So please don´t.
Thanks,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:11:57 +0200
Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote:
Hello Martin,
I usually only see list spam when someone replies to it.
Same here.
So please don´t.
*I* didn't, that was Walter. I replied to him. I should, of course,
have changed the subject at least
Do not reply to SPAM on the list. It makes it harder for the spam filters to
recognize it. If you simply *must* reply, (and no, comedic value no matter
how high is not a must) do *NOT* quote said SPAM. That confuses even the
content-based filters, since you have two messages with similar
List policy is clear concerning SPAM. Please take a minute to read the
Debian mailing list policy - http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
If you'd like to reduce the SPAM you receive via the list, follow the
instructions found as part of that policy -
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#ads
with p--is enlargement
spam on this list. Come on guys. Get your sh-t together, and get rid of the
spa--ers.
And I'm going to keep on sending complaints, until something positive is done.
I like this list, but am not in any way interested in a pe-is enlargement. I'm
59 years old, nothing works
to do what they like.
I've had a few drinks, but am especially pi--ed off with p--is enlargement
spam on this list. Come on guys. Get your sh-t together, and get rid of the
spa--ers.
And I'm going to keep on sending complaints, until something positive is
done.
I like this list, but am
spa--ers to do what they like.
I've had a few drinks, but am especially pi--ed off with p--is enlargement
spam on this list. Come on guys. Get your sh-t together, and get rid of the
spa--ers.
And I'm going to keep on sending complaints, until something positive is
done.
I like this list
.
I've had a few drinks, but am especially pi--ed off with p--is enlargement
spam on this list. Come on guys. Get your sh-t together, and get rid of the
spa--ers.
And I'm going to keep on sending complaints, until something positive is
done.
I like this list, but am not in any way
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 03:35:41PM -0400, KS wrote:
KS wrote:
Nigel Henry wrote:
A serious question. How can the spa--ers post to the list, using any
words
they like, and yet when I complain to the list using the same words they
do,
I am blocked from posting???
The only
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:35:41 -0400
KS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way I know to report spam is to click the Report Spam
button on the web interface for list archives. Can that be done
via Iceweasel(or other mail clients) interface so that users
don't have to go and find that
Raquel wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:35:41 -0400
KS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way I know to report spam is to click the Report Spam
button on the web interface for list archives. Can that be done
via Iceweasel(or other mail clients) interface so that users
don't have to go and find
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:26:56PM -0400, KS wrote:
No. That was a statement in addition to my earlier post asking if an
email client can also report spam just as we can do via the web
interface manually. If it was possible, my client (and possibly several
others) could have already updated
Hi,
On Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 14:33:08 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:26:56PM -0400, KS wrote:
No. That was a statement in addition to my earlier post asking if an
email client can also report spam just as we can do via the web
interface manually. If it was
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 14:33:08 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:26:56PM -0400, KS wrote:
No. That was a statement in addition to my earlier post asking if an
email client can also report spam just as we can do via the web
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 11:18, John Summerfield hurled the following on
the wire:
Edvard Majakari wrote:
Obviously it is, as you can check by the headers.
The only s-a headers I see are mine.
You can configure spamassassin to take out the existing spam headers, maybe
that's why.
Oh,
40 matches
Mail list logo
