or register an account to show problems with default rules,
remember scores is regnerated so in praktical there is no static scores
in default spamassassin, this is why i still say that the rule are ok,
but the corpus miss more ham to that rule
The fact that SpamAssassin is open-source is what&
When we get enough masscheck corpora to generate an update, the scores
will go down to advisory. If sufficient masscheck corpora were available
for regular score updates this issue would have been resolved a month
ago.
The fact is that nobody has articulated the rationale behind the
12-let
it ?, did thay only change reguired ? :=)
>
>>> as you see there is long way to 10
>> .2 points to go to 5.0
>
> irrelevant on ASF
>
>> score FROM_12LTRDOM 0.099 3.499 0.099 3.499
>> is a HUGE difference, any score over 2.75 points should
5.0
irrelevant on ASF
score FROM_12LTRDOM 0.099 3.499 0.099 3.499
is a HUGE difference, any score over 2.75 points should be suspect.
spamassassin is opensource, scores is not hardcoded
i think what is more needed is just more comiters with ham and spam to
the public
On 8/5/12 1:48 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-08-05 19:13, Ben Johnson skrev:
There is hardly any published information on this subject, so perhaps
one of the experts here will weigh-in. Apparently, I'm not the only one
who feels this "feature" needs to die:
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.
Den 2012-08-05 19:13, Ben Johnson skrev:
There is hardly any published information on this subject, so perhaps
one of the experts here will weigh-in. Apparently, I'm not the only
one
who feels this "feature" needs to die:
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.8 required=10.0
tests=FROM_12LTR
Hello,
As an owner of a 12-letter domain, and someone who is unable to post to
any of the Apache mailing lists due to messages being rejected as SPAM
(I'll be surprised if this one if any different), I have to ask, what is
the rationale for the infamous 12-letter-domain-ding?
How many 12-letter d
Thanks all for the good info!
--pat--
--
Pat Traynor
p...@ssih.com
On 10/27/2011 10:45 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 10/27, Pat Traynor wrote:
>> Is there an option that would allow me to see how each of these tests
>> affected the total score? A way to see the individual scores of those
>> tests?
> You could also run the email
On 10/27, Pat Traynor wrote:
> Is there an option that would allow me to see how each of these tests
> affected the total score? A way to see the individual scores of those
> tests?
You could also run the email through "spamassassin -t", if you just want a
one time view of the
autolearn=no version=3.3.2
Is there an option that would allow me to see how each of these tests
affected the total score? A way to see the individual scores of those
tests?
in local.cf add:
report Report = _REPORT_
if you don't like this see
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.
XT,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
> SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
>
> Is there an option that would allow me to see how each of these tests
> affected the total score? A way to see the individual scores of those
> tests?
Add this line in your local.cf or user_prefs file
there an option that would allow me to see how each of these tests
affected the total score? A way to see the individual scores of those
tests?
Thanks.
--pat--
--
Pat Traynor
p...@ssih.com
On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 22:29 +0930, Rodney Baker wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:02:20 John Hardin wrote:
> > Just as a test, if you comment that bit out of your personal .procmailrc
> > does everything work they way you'd expect (i.e. one SA pass, the correct
> > score in the X- headers)?
>
> Yep
On 8/16/2011 8:55 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:36:05 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
>> After you fixed your mail processing chain to not have SA chew twice on
>> the spam -- you should manually train Bayes, feeding it a lot of hand
>> classified spam, and possibly ham. Check your
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:02:20 John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Rodney Baker wrote:
> > :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > :
> > | spamc
>
> Just as a test, if you comment that bit out of your personal .procmailrc
> does everything work they way you'd expect (i.e. one SA pass, the correct
>
-- you should manually train Bayes, feeding it a lot of hand
> classified spam, and possibly ham. Check your 'sa-learn --dump magic'
> numbers. The Bayes score of 0.1 is way out of line.
Agreed. I do run sa-learn --spam (actually now have it scheduled to run weekly
on a folder into which
your 'sa-learn --dump magic'
numbers. The Bayes score of 0.1 is way out of line.
Note though, that a previous site-wide SA filter might use a site-wide
user, not the one owning the procmail recipe. Thus Bayes scores might
suddenly change once it's run per user. Check the numbers and
p
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Rodney Baker wrote:
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
| spamc
Just as a test, if you comment that bit out of your personal .procmailrc
does everything work they way you'd expect (i.e. one SA pass, the correct
score in the X- headers)?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:15:11 Walter Hurry wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:18:13 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > On 8/15/2011 10:57 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:
>
>
> >>:0
> >>
> >>* ^Subject.*SPAM\([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]\).* $HOME/Maildir/.Spam//
>
>
>
> > This message is going through SA twi
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:18:13 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 10:57 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:
>>:0
>>* ^Subject.*SPAM\([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]\).* $HOME/Maildir/.Spam//
> This message is going through SA twice.
Indeed. And by the way, for what it is worth, my .procmailrc says (inter
a
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:48:13 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 10:57 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:
> > Hi all. I'm running spamassassin 3.3.1 on my openSuse 11.2 box at home.
> > Mail is collected from multiple ISP mail accounts via fetchmail and
> > delivered to local IMAP mail folders via procmail. My
On 8/15/2011 10:57 AM, Rodney Baker wrote:
> Hi all. I'm running spamassassin 3.3.1 on my openSuse 11.2 box at home. Mail
> is collected from multiple ISP mail accounts via fetchmail and delivered to
> local IMAP mail folders via procmail. My user account .procmailrc file begins
> thus:
>
>L
Hi all. I'm running spamassassin 3.3.1 on my openSuse 11.2 box at home. Mail
is collected from multiple ISP mail accounts via fetchmail and delivered to
local IMAP mail folders via procmail. My user account .procmailrc file begins
thus:
LOGFILE=$HOME/pm.log
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
|
Hi,
I would like to know, if there is any possibility to reuse scores assigned
to those (online) rule hits in previous spamassassin check (obtained with
the --reuse param.). My problem is, that I don't have any internet access
with my virtual machine (I can't have one) and I want t
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 3/14/2011 9:03 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
Good afternoon list.
I have a strange situation where i get messages getting delivered as
"not spam" but when testing via command line, it scores well above the
threshold?
what could cause this
On 3/14/2011 9:03 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> Good afternoon list.
>
> I have a strange situation where i get messages getting delivered as
> "not spam" but when testing via command line, it scores well above the
> threshold?
>
> what could cause this:
>
>
Good afternoon list.
I have a strange situation where i get messages getting delivered as
"not spam" but when testing via command line, it scores well above the
threshold?
what could cause this:
_*Setup: *_
Suse 11 SP1
Postfix 2.5.6
amavisd-new 2.
3.003001/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf
> score RDNS_DYNAMIC 2.639 0.363 1.663 0.982
>
> If you are using Bayes and Network tests, then the last number is what
> you want. So the default (for SA 3.3.1) is 0.982.
>
> Take a look at the man page for Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf for more info
> on the scores.
>
Great. Thanks again. I shall play around with the scores for this.
On 2/17/2011 10:51 AM, J4K wrote:
> How could I list the default?
Something like this might get you started:
grep -R RDNS_DYNAMIC /var/lib/spamassassin/* | grep -i score
ests, then the last number is what
you want. So the default (for SA 3.3.1) is 0.982.
Take a look at the man page for Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf for more info
on the scores.
--
Bowie
On 02/17/2011 04:45 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, J4K wrote:
>
> You do not want to alter the distributed files, as any alterations
> would be lost on the next upgrade.
>
> That rule doesn't appear in any of your local customization files
> (under /etc/spamassassin) because you've n
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, J4K wrote:
I am interested in raising the score for the rule RDNS_DYNAMIC.
However, I cannot find it in any of the files under /etc/spamassassin.
I thought that it would be listed somewhere in this directory. In which
file is this located?
You do not want to alter the
On 2/17/2011 10:28 AM, J4K wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am interested in raising the score for the rule RDNS_DYNAMIC.
> However, I cannot find it in any of the files under /etc/spamassassin.
> I thought that it would be listed somewhere in this directory. In which
> file is this located?
>
> * W
Hi,
I am interested in raising the score for the rule RDNS_DYNAMIC.
However, I cannot find it in any of the files under /etc/spamassassin.
I thought that it would be listed somewhere in this directory. In which
file is this located?
* Why do I want to raise the bar for RDNS_DYNAMIC?
I
s for URIBL_(BLACK|GREY|RED) ]
URIBL != SURBL
The hits in your debug output show SURBL hits, just as you manually
checked SURBL.
The custom scores are for URIBL hits.
These are not the same URI blacklists, as clearly shown by the rule
names you quoted. (Granted, the generic URIBL prefix
$3|v3n,
> Jan 5 12:39:34 spamassasin-test amavis[53483]: (53483-01) SA dbg: async:
> completed in 0.131 s: URI-DNSBL, DNSBL:dbl.spamhaus.org.:pornhunter.co.tv
> Jan 5 12:39:34 spamassasin-test amavis[53483]: (53483-01) SA dbg: async:
> completed in 0.128 s: URI-DNSBL, DNSBL:multi.surbl.org.:porn
Jan 5 12:39:34 spamassasin-test amavis[53483]: (53483-01) SA dbg: async:
completed in 0.131 s: URI-DNSBL, DNSBL:dbl.spamhaus.org.:pornhunter.co.tv
Jan 5 12:39:34 spamassasin-test amavis[53483]: (53483-01) SA dbg: async:
completed in 0.128 s: URI-DNSBL, DNSBL:multi.surbl.org.:porncrazytube.info
Ja
In general, please stop worrying about your corpus being ideal. Our sample
size right now is so small that even non-ideal corpora would be helpful.
Get started with cron nightly masschecks then work on improving your corpus
later.
I personally include:
* The last 4 weeks of spam. I use logrotate
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:57:43 +0100
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 2010-12-24 12:37, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> > You have the option of uploading your corpus to the central server
> > to process every night. But most people have privacy concerns
> > about that if it is their own personal ham. Fo
you ensure a sufficiently large corpora
> if you tightly restrict that time window?
I can see how that would be a problem, and my first thought is... how old
is the average email that SA test scores are currently based on? This
stuff changes.
And my second thought is: I think it would be
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Also "current" is referring to the nightly masscheck snapshot of svn trunk
including the latest rules.
Sorry, I realize now that was unclear. What does "current" in "current
emails" mean? What time window? Since the last masscheck? A week? Six
mo
I thought a bit more about the --reuse problem. While there are pros and
cons to reuse, I guess there is more benefit to --reuse than without. So I
now recommend it in all cases of masscheck.
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> This does remind me however that there is a
I think what he is failing to understand is the scores are irrelevant, as
the masscheck is only determining yes or no for each rule across a corpus.
Also "current" is referring to the nightly masscheck snapshot of svn trunk
including the latest rules.
This does remind me however that
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 12/24, John Hardin wrote:
If there was some way to capture the score of RBL tests separately
from non-RBL tests and use them in place of the current RBL results
I might agree you have a point; but if the mass checks ignore the
scores that
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg69546.html
Whitelists have almost zero impact on spamassassin's determination of ham vs
spam. Believe me. This is not harmful.
If you have any ham corpus it would be extremely useful to spamassassin. We
have a severe lack of variety o
On 12/24, John Hardin wrote:
> If there was some way to capture the score of RBL tests separately
> from non-RBL tests and use them in place of the current RBL results
> I might agree you have a point; but if the mass checks ignore the
> scores that the current ruleset generates agains
the accuracy of things like razor and dnswl, and all
the blacklists.
If there was some way to capture the score of RBL tests separately from
non-RBL tests and use them in place of the current RBL results I might
agree you have a point; but if the mass checks ignore the scores that the
current ru
I am one of the editors of the dnswl.org database, and while it is tempting
to participate in the mass-checks, considering the effects that would have
on the dnswl tests or not, I think it's better to not have that skew. I
like having the QA test results to independently evaluate dnswl.
I wonder
On 2010-12-24 12:37, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
You have the option of uploading your corpus to the central server to
process every night. But most people have privacy concerns about that if it
is their own personal ham. For this reason you have the option of running
the masscheck script yourself
You have the option of uploading your corpus to the central server to
process every night. But most people have privacy concerns about that if it
is their own personal ham. For this reason you have the option of running
the masscheck script yourself every night on your own server and to rsync
upl
:45:14
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: My attempt at re-calculating test scores
BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the nightly
masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants in order to
enable promotion of new rules to the sa-update channel, and to make it
possible to r
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 12/23, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the
nightly masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants
in order to
I failed to mention the only spam I had was what got th
On 12/23, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the nightly
>masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants in order to
I failed to mention the only spam I had was what got through spamassassin.
I reject all spam during delivery
BTW, if you have your own corpora, why not participate in the nightly
masscheck? We are in serious need of additional participants in order to
enable promotion of new rules to the sa-update channel, and to make it
possible to release new versions of spamassassin.
Warren
I attempted to calculate more useful scores for all of the SA tests based
on my own corpora. Because individually tuned spam filters work better,
which is why per-user bayesian stuff exists.
I managed to reduce false negatives (spams getting past SA) by 84.6%
without causing any additional false
that were not marked. Are we likely to see some of these rules
scored a little higher than 0.001 anytime soon? Or do I need to start
tweaking the scores for the ones I find reliable?
I think I'm going to have to manually maintain the ADVANCE_FEE_*_NEW
scores, the autoscoring doesn'
one of the ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW rules, as well as 28 messages that were most
likely spams that were not marked. Are we likely to see some of these rules
scored a little higher than 0.001 anytime soon? Or do I need to start
tweaking the scores for the ones I find reliable?
--
Daniel J McDonald
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 14:57 -0400, Alex wrote:
> > Nope, spamd does not do anything with the email either.
>
> Thanks for correcting me. I use amavisd. For those who use spamd, how
> do they determine the email destiny based on the score? With just
> procmail?
Yes, or any other MDA, probably usin
Hi,
>> [...] spamassassin itself only does the scoring -- it's up to another
>> program, such as amavisd-new (separate application) or spamd (included
>> with spamassassin) to do something with the email once it has been
>> determined to be spam.
>
> Nope, spamd does not do anything with the email
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 21:34 -0400, Alex wrote:
> [...] spamassassin itself only does the scoring -- it's up to another
> program, such as amavisd-new (separate application) or spamd (included
> with spamassassin) to do something with the email once it has been
> determined to be spam.
Nope, spamd
KI, nor in a search of old messages, can I find any mention of what
> scores are normal to choose.
That is probably because SA does not know about quarantining. SA scores
a message. Quarantining, rejecting, delivering into a dedicated spam
folder -- all actions that SA does not do.
As you c
levels,
so I usually mark spam at 5 and quarantine around 7 to 20. Above 20, I usually
just discard.
> Unfortunately nowhere on that page, nor in the SA FAQ, nor in
> the SA WIKI, nor in a search of old messages, can I find any mention of what
> scores are normal to choose.
You may
Hi,
> My email server, squirrelmail, has spamassassin already installed. To
Squirrelmail isn't your email server, it's a client to an email server
like postfix or sendmail.
> configure, it says to enter the score above which emails should be
> quarantined. Unfortunately nowhere on that page, n
My email server, squirrelmail, has spamassassin already installed. To
configure, it says to enter the score above which emails should be
quarantined. Unfortunately nowhere on that page, nor in the SA FAQ, nor in
the SA WIKI, nor in a search of old messages, can I find any mention of what
scores
do not see that test in any of the lists in ver 2.6x – 3.3x so I cannot
find the default score for that test. Is there another set of tests or
lists that I am not aware of?
nh4tom
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Can%27t-find-certain-Bayesien-tests-and-default-scores-on-SA
I just noticed the new version of iXhash (from over a year ago).
The config file in this version has all of the scores set to 0.1. I
can't copy my old scores over because I have no idea how (or if) the new
domains map to the old ones.
Are there a set of recommended scores for this rul
with the same databases but different users.
Since the headers only contains full scores for one of the passes, it's
impossible to know for sure where all the difference in scores came from.
As you noted, one of the passes does have a negative bayes score, while
the other have no bayes score,
e is 6.9 in place of 3.9
>>
>
> Sounds like you are running the message through SA twice. Possibly once
> at receipt and once at delivery? The wide differences in Bayes score
> indicates that you are using two different databases, one of which is
> seriously mis-trained.
>
e through SA twice. Possibly once
at receipt and once at delivery? The wide differences in Bayes score
indicates that you are using two different databases, one of which is
seriously mis-trained.
> What I don't understand is:
> - If I'm summing up all scores mentioned in X-Spam-Status,
is:
* BAYES_95 in place of BAYES_05
* score is 6.9 in place of 3.9
What I don't understand is:
- If I'm summing up all scores mentioned in X-Spam-Status, I should
get 3.9 - BAYES_05 ( -1.1) + BAYES_95 (+3 or +5, I need to check
which value is used), giving 8 or 10, which in no case match 6.9
Thanks in advance for your help
Raph
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:44:21 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:58 AM, micah anderson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:56:56 -1000, Julian Yap
> > wrote:
> > > Just wanted to add that this particular line is incorrect:
> > > meta SC_HAM (USER_IN_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_WHITEL
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:58 AM, micah anderson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:56:56 -1000, Julian Yap
>> wrote:
>> > Just wanted to add that this particular line is incorrect:
>> > meta SC_HAM (USER_IN_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST||
>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:58 AM, micah anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:56:56 -1000, Julian Yap
> wrote:
> > Just wanted to add that this particular line is incorrect:
> > meta SC_HAM (USER_IN_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST||
> > USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO||NO_RELAYS||ALL_TRUSTED||USER_IN_BLAC
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:56:56 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
> Just wanted to add that this particular line is incorrect:
> meta SC_HAM (USER_IN_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST||
> USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO||NO_RELAYS||ALL_TRUSTED||USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO||
> USER_IN_BLACKLIST)
>
> That will have Blacklisted ema
8:07 AM, Micah Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:15:24 +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
>
> > Micah Anderson schrieb:
> >
> > | [surprisingly low scores]
> > | The spams can be pulled from here: http://micah.riseup.net/spams
> >
> > Most (all?)
Henrique Fernandes wrote on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:27:18 -0300:
> In my case i use per user sql, that means that the user will not get any
> improvement that other reports in other accoutns have made ?
Correct.
Like User1 gets
> lot of lot emails, so his base learns a lot so the spamassassin get m
Hello everyone,
I am new here and I start to use spamassassin as anti-spam solution where i
work, but i have a few questions about it still, and i am not a fluent
english speaker so sorry for any mistakes that i will make.
I am confusied by how the sa-learn works, not really how it works, but how
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:19:03 +
Tom wrote:
> On 17/02/10 00:35, RW wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't know it's internal because you haven't set your
> > > internal network to include your
> > > own IP address. Generally local mail shouldn't go through SA so
> > > that's not an issue.
> > >
> >
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:01:47 +
> Tom wrote:
>
> > Hi SA peeps,
> >
> > I noticed that I was triggering
> > "RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC" when sending mail through
> > my own spamassassin, which is spamassassin-3.2.5-2 from the fc10 repo,
> > con
On 17/02/10 00:35, RW wrote:
> > It doesn't know it's internal because you haven't set your internal
> > network to include your
> > own IP address. Generally local mail shouldn't go through SA so
> > that's not an issue.
> >
>
Hi,
Thanks for that reply.
What exactly do you mean by "set y
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 00:35 +, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:01:47 + Tom wrote:
> > I noticed that I was triggering
> > "RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC" when sending mail through
> > my own spamassassin, which is spamassassin-3.2.5-2 from the fc10 repo,
> > configured via
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:01:47 +
Tom wrote:
>
> Hi SA peeps,
>
> I noticed that I was triggering
> "RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC" when sending mail through
> my own spamassassin, which is spamassassin-3.2.5-2 from the fc10 repo,
> configured via mimedefang and sendmail-milter.
>
Hi SA peeps,
I noticed that I was triggering
"RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC" when sending mail through
my own spamassassin, which is spamassassin-3.2.5-2 from the fc10 repo,
configured via mimedefang and sendmail-milter.
I decided to try sending through my ISP's smtp server instead,
don't know if this is meant to be 0. if 0, and really should be zero,
why not make it a meta rule only?
20_drugs.cf:meta DRUGS_ANXIETY_EREC (DRUGS_ERECTILE && DRUGS_ANXIETY)
20_drugs.cf:describe DRUGS_ANXIETY_EREC Refers to both an erectile
and an anxiety drug
50_scores.cf:score DRUGS_ANX
+ 0,6 + 0,1 = 5 (catch)
>
> What about:
>
> 1.0 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: Received via a relay in Barracuda BRBL
> 1.7 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: HostKarma: relay in black list
> 0.8 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK RBL: Received from an IP listed by SEM-BLACK
> 2.0 URIBL_BLACK
On 5-Dec-2009, at 12:26, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> On 5.12.2009 16:03, LuKreme wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>
>>> Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
>>
>> 14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
>> initially,
> On 4.12.2009 18:00, Thomas Harold wrote:
> > SA had a lot of trouble identifying this as spam. The IP
> > (174.139.37.196) is not yet listed in a lot of the DNSBLs. So it only
> > scored around a 1.0 on the spam meter.
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/m1d0a75b7
On 04.12.09 22:42, Jari Fredriksson
On 5.12.2009 16:03, LuKreme wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
>> Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
>
> 14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
> initially, and score 0.9 on your tests based on that.
>
Really?
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:03:34 -0700
LuKreme wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> > Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
>
> 14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
> initially, and score 0.9 on your tests based on th
On Dec 4, 2009, at 13:42, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Content analysis details: (14.9 points, 5.0 required)
14 of your points come from the IP being listed. It was not listed
initially, and score 0.9 on your tests based on that.
On 4.12.2009 18:00, Thomas Harold wrote:
> SA had a lot of trouble identifying this as spam. The IP
> (174.139.37.196) is not yet listed in a lot of the DNSBLs. So it only
> scored around a 1.0 on the spam meter.
>
> http://pastebin.com/m1d0a75b7
>
> It uses a block of foreign language spam a
SA had a lot of trouble identifying this as spam. The IP
(174.139.37.196) is not yet listed in a lot of the DNSBLs. So it only
scored around a 1.0 on the spam meter.
http://pastebin.com/m1d0a75b7
It uses a block of foreign language spam at the end to get past some SA
checks. Such as HTML_I
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
Here is a site that gives you your IP address and lets you check it against
DNSBLs:
http://cqcounter.com/rbl_check/
Just as a word of warning, that site is still checking
blacklist.spambag.org, wh
On Saturday 31 October 2009, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>> Here is a site that gives you your IP address and lets you check it
>> against DNSBLs:
>>
>> http://cqcounter.com/rbl_check/
>
>Just as a word of warning, that site is still checking
>blackl
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> Here is a site that gives you your IP address and lets you check it against
> DNSBLs:
>
> http://cqcounter.com/rbl_check/
Just as a word of warning, that site is still checking
blacklist.spambag.org, which has been offline since 2007 and now
Hi,
On Fri, 30.10.2009 at 15:09:20 -0700, djjmj wrote:
> Thank you for your interest and support. I will keep pushing our ISP to use
> this forum for a resolution.
please learn about how email works. Really.
You only sent an obfuscated log about an email conversation with your
ISP, but not th
On Saturday 31 October 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
>> one small clarification, which didnt come to me until after I went to
>> IPchicken. Our ISP is NOT our EmailSP
>
>That is a pretty critical part of the equation. Having problems with an
>ESP changes many of the as
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
one small clarification, which didnt come to me until after I went to
IPchicken. Our ISP is NOT our EmailSP
That is a pretty critical part of the equation. Having problems with an
ESP changes many of the assumptions that we make if you say you're having
prob
nts to a
>>>>> different i...@!@ Any help is appreciated.
>
> --
> John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
> jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
> key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
> ---
>...the Fates notice those who buy chainsaws...
>-- www.darwinawards.com
> ---
> Tomorrow: Halloween
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-outlook-2007-%22Test%22-email-scores-30%2B-tp26137005p26139546.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
201 - 300 of 1170 matches
Mail list logo
