On 13/01/2011 21:06, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
Thank you all for your quick responses and suggestions. I went ahead and
adjusted the threshold from 3.00 to 5.00. I'll continue to monitor how the
server is reacting to spam as we move forward.
Thanks again for your help.
-Brendan
The method I use,
in error, please contact us immediately at (610) 874-5000 and
delete the message from any computer or other storage system.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/BlackBerry-Email-Being-Blocked-by-SpamAssassin-tp30665108p30665108.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list
On 13/01/2011 3:10 PM, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
We are running SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (1.1) with IceWarp Mail Server and
currently the following are whitelisted within IceWarp:
*.bis.na.blackberry.com
*.blackberry.com
*.blackberry.net
A score of 3.0 is much too low for determining if an e-mail is
to criminal or civil liability. If you have received this
communication in error, please contact us immediately at (610) 874-5000 and
delete the message from any computer or other storage system.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/BlackBerry-Email-Being-Blocked-by-SpamAssassin
On 2011/01/13 1:40 PM, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
X-spam-flag: YES
X-spam-status: Yes, hits=3.01 required=3.00
tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.00,RATWARE_RCVD_BONUS_SPC=1.00,VOWEL_URI_5=1.00,NO_RDNS2=0.01,MR_DIFF_MID=1.00
version=3.2.5
X-spam-level: ***
X-spam-checker-version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (1.1)
Yes,
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:40 -0800, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
[...] As long as its being sent from the device, it's being tagged
with some of the tests listed below. The emails are arriving, however they
are being delivered into the Spam folder and not the Inbox due to our mail
server settings
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:57 -0500, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2011/01/13 1:40 PM, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.00,
RATWARE_RCVD_BONUS_SPC=1.00,VOWEL_URI_5=1.00,NO_RDNS2=0.01,MR_DIFF_MID=1.00
version=3.2.5
Yes, 3.0 is too low, but so is your SA version. None of those 1.00
Brendan Murtagh wrote:
Many of our employees have BlackBerry devices as well as iPhones, Droids,
etc. However, the only device that is getting flagged as spam by
SpamAssassin is BlackBerry. It doesn't matter if a new email is composed or
its a reply. As long as its being sent from the device,
this communication in error, please contact us immediately at
(610) 874-5000 and delete the message from any computer or other storage
system.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/BlackBerry-Email-Being-Blocked-by-SpamAssassin-tp30665108p30665900.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin
,URIBL_RHS_DOB,URIBL_SBL
autolearn=spam\n\tversion=3.2.4
Jan 15 18:18:46 mailserver sendmail[20774]: m0FDIbQ2020774: Milter: data,
reject=550 5.7.1 Blocked by SpamAssassin
Jan 15 18:18:46 mailserver sendmail[20774]: m0FDIbQ2020774: to=[EMAIL
PROTECTED], delay=00:00:05, pri=30772, stat=Blocked
,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,\n\tRCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLACK,\n\tURIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_RHS_DOB,URIBL_SBL
| autolearn=spam\n\tversion=3.2.4
| Jan 15 18:18:46 mailserver sendmail[20774]: m0FDIbQ2020774: Milter:
| data, reject=550 5.7.1 Blocked by SpamAssassin
Umar Murtaza wrote:
Who exactly is blocking this email?
Whoever configured the server (that produced the logs you
included) to reject mail based on the results from SpamAssassin.
Can i have a settings to keep a copy/archive of this email, if it is blocked?
Possibly. The answer should be
we are using spamass-milter
Jonas Eckerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umar Murtaza wrote:
Who exactly is blocking this email?
Whoever configured the server (that produced the logs you
included) to reject mail based on the results from SpamAssassin.
Can i have a settings to keep a
Hello Wolfgang,
Monday, December 6, 2004, 7:39:09 AM, you wrote:
LW That's because such a rule won't work. All manner of real mail ends up
LW sending things that have a real link address different from the one shown
in
LW the link. Often it is a very minor difference, like https vs http, but
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 18:29, Robert Menschel wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
Monday, December 6, 2004, 7:39:09 AM, you wrote:
LW That's because such a rule won't work. All manner of real mail ends up
LW sending things that have a real link address different from the one
shown in
LW the link.
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 20:00, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Monday, December 06, 2004 6:44 PM -0800 Bill Randle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Obviously, these are tailored for each specific message, so it's
not a generic solution, but it can help. Currently, there are
signatures for 18 different
Hello Bob,
thanks for getting back on that.
The problem with these mails - they may not be spam, they may not be fraud
either,
but they impose a different kind of threat by lowering recipients'
thresholds on security.
I have had that argument well, I read that mail, and nothing bad
On Monday, December 6, 2004, 4:02:59 AM, Eugene Morozov wrote:
Hello!
Our customer received email which contained invitation to confirm
personal information at the online bank. Link was hidden using following
trick:
A
Hello!
Our customer received email which contained invitation to confirm
personal information at the online bank. Link was hidden using following
trick:
A
href=http://www.designlaboratory.jp/board/hg.html;https://www.ebank.hsbc.com.hk/servlet/onlinehsbc.jsp/A
It was a big surprise for me that
Our customer received email which contained invitation to confirm
personal information at the online bank. Link was hidden using following
trick:
A
href=http://www.designlaboratory.jp/board/hg.html;https://www.ebank.hsbc.c
om.hk/servlet/onlinehsbc.jsp/A
It was a big surprise for me that
That's because such a rule won't work. All manner of real mail ends up
sending things that have a real link address different from the one shown in
the link. Often it is a very minor difference, like https vs http, but
sometimes there are no points of reality at all between them. This
21 matches
Mail list logo
