Sorry for the "top-post"...

Please see Bug 3004 (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3004)

I guess the AOL issue isn't limited to SA & CommuniGate Pro.  Perhaps, one
of the developers could comment.

Regards,

Marc Steuer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Holland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:46 PM
To: Loren Wilton; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: false positives from AOL

Here are some of them - they do all have a lot in common - but I'm not
experience enough with this to completely understand what it's telling me:

1.
pts rule name              description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
  0.3 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
  0.9 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
-0.0 BAYES_44               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
                             [score: 0.4998]
  0.2 HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY  BODY: HTML has unbalanced "body" tags
  0.1 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.3 HTML_FONT_BIG          BODY: HTML has a big font
  0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE  BODY: HTML font color not in safe 6x6x6 palette
  0.1 HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HTML  BODY: HTML has unbalanced "html" tags
  2.9 NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO    Host HELO'd as a big ISP, but had no rDNS
  1.8 FAKE_HELO_AOL          Host HELO did not match rDNS: aol.com

2.
  pts rule name              description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
  0.3 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
-0.0 BAYES_44               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
                             [score: 0.4480]
  0.1 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.5 HTML_50_60             BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
  2.9 NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO    Host HELO'd as a big ISP, but had no rDNS
  1.8 FAKE_HELO_AOL          Host HELO did not match rDNS: aol.com

3.
  pts rule name              description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
  0.3 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
  0.9 HTML_40_50             BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
-0.0 BAYES_44               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
                             [score: 0.4995]
  0.1 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HTML  BODY: HTML has unbalanced "html" tags
  2.9 NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO    Host HELO'd as a big ISP, but had no rDNS
  1.8 FAKE_HELO_AOL          Host HELO did not match rDNS: aol.com

4.
  pts rule name              description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
  0.3 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
  0.1 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 50 to 56%
                             [score: 0.5150]
  0.3 HTML_70_80             BODY: Message is 70% to 80% HTML
  2.9 NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO    Host HELO'd as a big ISP, but had no rDNS
  1.8 FAKE_HELO_AOL          Host HELO did not match rDNS: aol.com


Loren Wilton wrote:

> Are you getting hits on anything other than the aol domain in these
> messages?  Where is the score coming from?
> 
> You can certianly write a 'aol partly ok' rule that only gives a few
points
> negative.
> 
> header    AOL_MAYBE    From =~ /aol\.com/
> score    AOL_MAYBE    -5        # maybe ok, maybe not
> 
>         Loren
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dana Holland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:24 PM
> Subject: false positives from AOL
> 
> 
> 
>>It seems that every piece of email from an AOL user is being tagged as
>>spam.  However, this is an educational institution - we receive a lot of
>>emails from students with AOL accounts.  So far I've been trying to put
>>each student in the white list, but I can tell that's going to be
>>unmanageable.  Is there anything else I could do?  Is allowing anything
>>from AOL through going to be the only option?
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to