jdow wrote:
From: "Chris Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Tony Finch wrote (05/11/06 17:43):
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
So? Build something better. Its open source. Don't use the RFCI scores,
drop them, stop bithing about somehting YOU can change.
Well, I've added a -2 for emai
jdow writes:
> From: "Chris Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >* Tony Finch wrote (05/11/06 17:43):
> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> >>
> >>> So? Build something better. Its open source. Don't use the RFCI scores,
> >>> drop them, stop bithing about somehting YOU can change.
> >>
>
From: "Chris Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Tony Finch wrote (05/11/06 17:43):
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
So? Build something better. Its open source. Don't use the RFCI scores,
drop them, stop bithing about somehting YOU can change.
Well, I've added a -2 for email from Amazon
On Mon, November 6, 2006 12:46, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Dunno. I wrote about this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and never got a
> reply.
maybe it sent to /dev/null in there end :(
i send mail to postmaster when i find a domain that does not handle things
right, newer got a usefull reply from hotmail.c
* Benny Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> correct. if 100 happy amazon.com users complain to amazon.com about there
> listing in rfci, what will happend then ?
Dunno. I wrote about this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and never got a
reply.
> does amazon.com know there faults ?
Yes, they fixed the issu
On Sun, November 5, 2006 18:43, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> So? Build something better. Its open source. Don't use the RFCI scores,
>> drop them, stop bithing about somehting YOU can change.
> Well, I've added a -2 for email from Amazon, but I thought other
* Tony Finch wrote (05/11/06 17:43):
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>> So? Build something better. Its open source. Don't use the RFCI scores,
>> drop them, stop bithing about somehting YOU can change.
>
> Well, I've added a -2 for email from Amazon, but I thought other people
>
On Sat, November 4, 2006 02:34, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> Not a false positive if their servers are broken.
> True from the RFCI point of view, but NOT true from the SpamAssassin point
> of view. These messages are wanted by their recipients so should not
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
> Well, I've added a -2 for email from Amazon, but I thought other
> people might like a warning. No need to flame someone who's trying
> to help.
RFCi and SA is a somewhat sensitive topic here, as you'll see if you
check the archives from about a month back.
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> So? Build something better. Its open source. Don't use the RFCI scores,
> drop them, stop bithing about somehting YOU can change.
Well, I've added a -2 for email from Amazon, but I thought other people
might like a warning. No need to flame someone w
From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Based on Tony's logic, we should delist hotmail.com (someone
might want an email from hotmail), microsoft.com, yahoo.com, google.com,
. All of which are listed in RFCI. Heck, we should totally ignore
the spa
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 9:59 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Amazon / RFCI false positives
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Scheidell [
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: zaterdag 4 november 2006 13:52
> To: Ralf Hildebrandt; Tony Finch
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Amazon / RFCI false positives
> Based on Tony's logic, we
* Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Based on the original bounce in the rfci list, they have been broken for
> over 5 days.
Yes.
> For a whole, the mx records for amazon.com themselves were broke also.
I didn't notice that.
> What about SARES image scores? Hey, I wanted that email from
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralf Hildebrandt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 2:19 AM
> To: Tony Finch
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Amazon / RFCI false positives
>
>
> * Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > True from the RFCI point of view, but NOT true from the
> > SpamAssassin point of view. These messages are wanted by
> > their recipients so should not be scored as spam by SpamAssassin.
>
> You don't understand.
> Go buy a clue somewhere.
These iss
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Finch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Tony Finch
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:35 PM
> To: Michael Scheidell
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Amazon / RFCI false positives
>
>
> On Fri,
* Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My mistake: I cited the wrong domain. Try bounces.amazon.com which they
> use in the return path of their messages (I guess for all their
> international domains)
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=bounces.amazon.com
Yes, correct. My tests sh
From: "Tony Finch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Not a false positive if their servers are broken.
True from the RFCI point of view, but NOT true from the SpamAssassin point
of view. These messages are wanted by their recipients so should not be
scored as s
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> Not a false positive if their servers are broken.
True from the RFCI point of view, but NOT true from the SpamAssassin point
of view. These messages are wanted by their recipients so should not be
scored as spam by SpamAssassin.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.fin
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Scheidell
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:32 PM
> To: Tony Finch; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Amazon / RFCI false positives
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tony Finch [mailto
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Finch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Tony Finch
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:59 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Amazon / RFCI false positives
>
> Amazon.co.uk was listed by RFC-Ignorant at the start of this
> week, an
Seems pretty accurate to me since I have accounts that have been
returning "550: User Unknown" smtp rejects for 2+ years that still receive
mail from Amazon on a weekly/monthly basis. Same thing for several airline
mileage programs, big name stock brokerages, etc.
On Friday 03 November 2006 08:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Amazon.co.uk was listed by RFC-Ignorant at the start of this week, and it
> > is now scoring more than 5: DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN 2.87, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 1.44,
> > FROM_EXCESS_BASE64 1.05.
>
> Amazon.co.uk is not listed:
* Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Amazon.co.uk was listed by RFC-Ignorant at the start of this week, and it
> is now scoring more than 5: DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN 2.87, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 1.44,
> FROM_EXCESS_BASE64 1.05.
Amazon.co.uk is not listed:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=Ama
25 matches
Mail list logo
