I looked for any cases of MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT logged as spam yesterday.
We log if it scores 7.0 or higher. A message from a legit company
called Mathworks had this Message-ID, as logged by sendmail:
msgid=>
That hit INVALID_MSGID and MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT. My reading of RFC 2822
is that the < and >
Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
> Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
>> the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
>>
>> There's also a bug already open
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 16:02 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:45:35 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Anyway, I believe just disabling this rule won't help much. See my other
> > post with details about this.
>
> Thanks for the line (and others who
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 15:53 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:40:18 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Things to consider: (a) Train your ham, in particular FPs like this and
> > any other important mail. (b) Drop that user from your AWL database,
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:45:35 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 15:23 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
>
> > No, I think put a "#" in a file is more quickly than give you full
> > mails and wait for a patch.
> > Could you explain me how disable this check?
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:40:18 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 13:00 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:51:58 +0200 Yet Another Ninja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can you post a sample message on some web server (past
Hi,
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
There's also a bug already open on this.
ht
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 15:23 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> No, I think put a "#" in a file is more quickly than give you full
> mails and wait for a patch.
> Could you explain me how disable this check? It's important to disable
> MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT.
Just as has been mentioned by others alread
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 13:00 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:51:58 +0200 Yet Another Ninja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Can you post a sample message on some web server (pastebin.com) so ppl
> > can see what's causing this?
> > PLEASE do NOT munge servernames & IPs
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:12:56 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) wrote:
>
> Nicolas Letellier writes:
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
> > Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
> > > the message-id, which is i
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicolas Letellier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:59 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: problem with MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
>
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
> Matt Kettler <[EMAIL
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
> Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
>> the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
>>
>> There's also a bug already open on this.
>>
>> https://issue
Nicolas Letellier writes:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
> Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
> > the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
> >
> > There's also a bug already ope
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
> the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
>
> There's also a bug already open on this.
>
> https://issues.apache.o
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 9/2/2008 1:00 PM, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:51:58 +0200
>> Yet Another Ninja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you post a sample message on some web server (pastebin.com) so
>>> ppl can see what's causing this?
>>> PLEASE do NOT munge serve
On 9/2/2008 1:00 PM, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:51:58 +0200
Yet Another Ninja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you post a sample message on some web server (pastebin.com) so ppl
can see what's causing this?
PLEASE do NOT munge servernames & IPs
See the headers:
http://past
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:51:58 +0200
Yet Another Ninja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you post a sample message on some web server (pastebin.com) so ppl
> can see what's causing this?
> PLEASE do NOT munge servernames & IPs
See the headers:
http://pastebin.ca/1191372
I don't have the full messa
On 9/2/2008 12:24 PM, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
Hello.
I have a recurrent problem. Many *true* mail are tagged as SPAM because of a
too high score.
Indeed, a parameter causes problem:
MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT is often high
I see http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
But these ma
Hello.
I have a recurrent problem. Many *true* mail are tagged as SPAM because of a
too high score.
Indeed, a parameter causes problem:
MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT is often high
I see http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
But these mails are sent with an Outlook 12.0, and aren't spa
19 matches
Mail list logo
