Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
JADP - the rfc-ignorant rules lost us some important email today. The
customer was throwing away all mail tagged as SPAM after many months of no
false positives. I've turned those rules off on my site, and continue as
always to encourage my users to check their tagged ma
Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
IMHO if a rule is getting legit email tagged as SPAM it should be toned
down. Obeying the RFC's is a good thing, but I am trying to tune our
spam filter to filter spam, not to be a netcop. Our particular contact
seems to have gotten onto rfc-ignorant's list because it
Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
IMHO if a rule is getting legit email tagged as SPAM it should be toned
down. Obeying the RFC's is a good thing, but I am trying to tune our spam
filter to filter spam, not to be a netcop.
Then you should disable these BLs in your configuration.
Don't suggest to other
Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
> JADP - the rfc-ignorant rules lost us some important email today. The
> customer was throwing away all mail tagged as SPAM after many months of
> no false positives. I've turned those rules off on my site, and continue
> as always to encourage my users to check their tag
JADP - the rfc-ignorant rules lost us some important email today. The customer was throwing away all mail tagged as SPAM after many months of no false positives. I've turned those rules off on my site, and continue as always to encourage my users to check their tagged mail before tossing it.
IMHO
John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 10:11, Jo Rhett wrote:
I got two HAM messages
with this set (but only this and not enough to filter on) and nearly
every spam either had this or was picked up by SPF or DKIM rules (was a
forged mail from a domain which had a postmaster)
Thanks for
On Monday 16 October 2006 10:11, Jo Rhett wrote:
I got two HAM messages
with this set (but only this and not enough to filter on) and nearly
every spam either had this or was picked up by SPF or DKIM rules (was a
forged mail from a domain which had a postmaster)
John Andersen wrote:
Thanks for
On Monday 16 October 2006 10:11, Jo Rhett wrote:
> I got two HAM messages
> with this set (but only this and not enough to filter on) and nearly
> every spam either had this or was picked up by SPF or DKIM rules (was a
> forged mail from a domain which had a postmaster)
Thanks for proving my point
John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:54, John Rudd wrote:
That rule has a 3.2 value because the 3.2 value is
accurate to differentiating spam vs ham in the corpus. Therefore, the
score is appropriate.
No, its not accurate.
The rule is in-discriminant as to content. It flags h
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSC
John Rudd wrote:
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSCORE
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSCORE NAME
3.7247 0
--On Friday, October 13, 2006 9:23 AM +0100 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please bear in mind, also, that there are 5 different rules that
use RFCI data, and they have wildly varying accuracies and scores:
SPAM%HAM%S/ORANKSCORE NAME
3.7247 0.0540 0.986 0.852
Justin Mason wrote:
> OTOH, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, and DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS will
> likely not make it into the next release going by those rates.
Thank-you very kindly for your work.
I apologize (to all) for any overzealousness on my part. I realize I
addressed the issue on a vari
On Friday 13 October 2006 00:23, Justin Mason wrote:
> John D. Hardin writes:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> > > For the purposes of SpamAssassin, it only matters if spam is
> > > filtered and ham is let through. As I keep harping on, I don't
> > > think it's SpamAssassin's job to
John D. Hardin writes:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> > For the purposes of SpamAssassin, it only matters if spam is
> > filtered and ham is let through. As I keep harping on, I don't
> > think it's SpamAssassin's job to crusade for abuse@/postmaster@
> > compliance.
> >
> > The rul
> The rules in question almost by definition don't address spam, they
> address whether people are peeved at how hard it is to contact a
> domain's postmaster. Which is why I dispute the score attached to them.
I've also been annoyed by Yahoo FPs based on the RFCI list. However:
1) In my experie
From: "John Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:54, John Rudd wrote:
That rule has a 3.2 value because the 3.2 value is
accurate to differentiating spam vs ham in the corpus. Therefore, the
score is appropriate.
No, its not accurate.
The rule is in-discriminant as to
From: "John Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:25, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
The purpose of SpamAssassin is not to punish domains without working
postmaster addresses. It is not to act as RFC cops. It is to detect
spam. Let's not lose sight of the goal because some BL list ha
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:54, John Rudd wrote:
> That rule has a 3.2 value because the 3.2 value is
> accurate to differentiating spam vs ham in the corpus. Therefore, the
> score is appropriate.
No, its not accurate.
The rule is in-discriminant as to content. It flags ham with the same sc
On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:25, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> The purpose of SpamAssassin is not to punish domains without working
> postmaster addresses. It is not to act as RFC cops. It is to detect
> spam. Let's not lose sight of the goal because some BL list has gone on
> a crusade to police compl
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > That said, many times I have been annoyed by a filter on somebody's
> > abuse@ address bouncing an abuse notice that I sent *with evidence*. I
> > do not recommend a rejecting spam filter on the abuse@ address, it
> > will keep p
John D. Hardin wrote:
> That said, many times I have been annoyed by a filter on somebody's
> abuse@ address bouncing an abuse notice that I sent *with evidence*. I
> do not recommend a rejecting spam filter on the abuse@ address, it
> will keep people from reporting abuse of your systems to you.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> >
> >> So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and
> >> postmaster from bouncing?
> >
> > I think you're misunderstanding the issue.
>
> Nope.
>
> I wasn't replying to the
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and
postmaster from bouncing?
I think you're misunderstanding the issue.
Nope.
I wasn't replying to the larger issue in that message. I was replying
to the specific issue
Kurt Fitzner wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
> But if the stated purpose of the BL is "this domain does not have a
working postmaster address" then it's unreasonable to ask them to
exclude a domain that does not have a working postmaster address, no
matter how large or popular that domain is.
My
John D. Hardin wrote:
> But if the stated purpose of the BL is "this domain does not have a
> working postmaster address" then it's unreasonable to ask them to
> exclude a domain that does not have a working postmaster address, no
> matter how large or popular that domain is.
My concern is the sc
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Andersen wrote:
> On Thursday 12 October 2006 00:20, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> > ?The kind of score being added to every
> > one of their messages is out-of-line with the seriousness of missing a
> > couple of rfc addresses.
>
> I agree. Especially when Yahoo has published
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and
> postmaster from bouncing?
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. He has a problem with
rfc-ignorant being strict in their interpretation of the RFC
requirements. It's not mail to *his* postm
> On the one hand they (apache.org) refuses mail from perfectly RFC compliant
> Linux boxes insisting you send through your ISP, and then they refuse mail
> from the ISP because ONE spammer in some backwater managed to get one
> piece of spam into some spamtrap somewhere.
You assume (incorrectly)
Kurt Fitzner wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
why do you care about it ?
after all its not your domain :-)
I care because:
A) All mail into my domain is filtered through SpamAssassin with a
milter - including mail that goes to postmaster and abuse. Not that my
little domain gets much on either a
John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the one hand they (apache.org) refuses mail from perfectly RFC compliant
> Linux boxes insisting you send through your ISP, and then they refuse mail
> from the ISP because ONE spammer in some backwater managed to get one
> piece of spam into some spa
On Thursday 12 October 2006 00:20, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> The kind of score being added to every
> one of their messages is out-of-line with the seriousness of missing a
> couple of rfc addresses.
I agree. Especially when Yahoo has published methods for reporting
spam and abuse even if they are n
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> why do you care about it ?
>
> after all its not your domain :-)
I care because:
A) All mail into my domain is filtered through SpamAssassin with a
milter - including mail that goes to postmaster and abuse. Not that my
little domain gets much on either address, but from w
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Fitzner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:32 AM
> To: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Concerned with scores for from rfc-ignorant.org
>
>
> I just upgraded from 3.0.2 to 3.1.7 today, as I noticed the
> amount of spam getting
On Wed, October 11, 2006 11:32, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> Those are very high scores attributed to domains that blocked a
> postmaster@ or who's whois is private. I can understand some people
> being RFC purists, but this seems a little extreme.
why do you care about it ?
after all its not your dom
36 matches
Mail list logo
