On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 01:29:51PM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>
> Agreed, that's why I want Henrik to comment. I don't have the corpus he used
> to develop that rule.
It's really old rules, I don't have either. ;-)
__HK_SCAM_S7 seems to have regressed FP wise, just gonna drop it..
On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 16:20 -0400, Aner Perez wrote:
> It looks like to me like the logic in __HK_SCAM_S7 is a little
> > off...
> >
> > /(?:(?:investment|proposed|lucrative)
> > (?:business|venture)|(?:business|venture)
> > (?:enterprise|propos(?:al|ition)))/i
> >
> > seems like it should be:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, Aner Perez wrote:
On 7/1/20 3:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, Aner Perez wrote:
I opened a bug (7832) about this but was told to report on the SA users
mailing list instead.
The attached email is an example which triggers the HK_SCAM rule. Looks
like
On 7/1/20 3:52 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, Aner Perez wrote:
I opened a bug (7832) about this but was told to report on the SA users mailing list
instead.
The attached email is an example which triggers the HK_SCAM rule. Looks like
__HK_SCAM_S7 is the culprit here since it
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, Aner Perez wrote:
I opened a bug (7832) about this but was told to report on the SA users
mailing list instead.
The attached email is an example which triggers the HK_SCAM rule. Looks like
__HK_SCAM_S7 is the culprit here since it matches the words "business" and
I opened a bug (7832) about this but was told to report on the SA users mailing
list instead.
The attached email is an example which triggers the HK_SCAM rule. Looks like __HK_SCAM_S7
is the culprit here since it matches the words "business" and "enterprise" when they are
found one after the
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, @lbutlr wrote:
On 30 Jun 2020, at 09:31, RW wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:30:17 +
Roald Stolte wrote:
These mails were all using TLDs such as .site and .online and were
getting marked because of it.
Are others seeing a decrease in spam from .site and .online? All I
On 30 Jun 2020, at 09:31, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:30:17 +
> Roald Stolte wrote:
>
>
>> These mails were all using TLDs such as .site and .online and were
>> getting marked because of it.
Are others seeing a decrease in spam from .site and .online? All I see from
these TLD is
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:49:03 +0200
Marc Roos wrote:
> Jul 1 01:08:45 spam1 sendmail[19193]: 05UN8fHL019193: Milter:
> from=, reject=550 5.7.1 Rejected
> feedb...@service.alibaba.com SPAM (ebl.msbl.org)
I don't know what this is, but I guess it's not a purely SA based milter
as it gives a
Not much yet, I got this one[1]. But I am having this check as one of
the last. Most connections are already failing with 'Possibly forged
hostname'
[1]
Jul 1 01:08:45 spam1 sendmail[19193]: 05UN8fHL019193: Milter:
from=, reject=550 5.7.1 Rejected
feedb...@service.alibaba.com SPAM
10 matches
Mail list logo