I have a fix for that.... score RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED 0
I don't give big negative points to anyone. To each his own though. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:29 PM To: R McGlue Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED Hello R, Thursday, March 10, 2005, 12:28:51 AM, you wrote: RM> From: Alana Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RM> Subject: Updating my address book >> I would like to include your contact information in an address book I am >> creating for myself. Please enter your particulars using the link you see >> below: >> http://www.bebo.com/fr1/10076492a285606901b140803462c883765683d20 RM> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 RM> tests=BAYES_40,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, RM> RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 RM> -4.3 RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED RBL: Sender is in Bonded Sender Program RM> (trusted relay) RM> [IronPort Bonded Sender - RM> <http://www.bondedsender.com>] RM> should this obvious spam be allowed in BSP?? Yes, since the sending site, > Received: from mail01.birthdayalarm.com ([65.19.128.185]) is bonded. However, because they're bonded, report it to bondedsender, and let birthdayalarm.com pay the bonding penalty. BTW, I'm collecting samples of this type of spam (we're getting a fair amount of it here also), and hope to have rules ready for specific.cf eventually. It's tricky, since there ARE valid emails with almost identical characteristics... (As for is it spam -- chances are yes, from what I've seen. Identical to non-spam, except non-spam often will have more personal content. The purpose of the spam, as far as I can guess, is to obtain valid email addresses from gullible suckers.) Bob Menschel
