On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:56:56PM +0000, Bruce M Beach wrote: > SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- > SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered > SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. > SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. > SPAM: > SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.80 hits, 5 required) > SPAM: USER_AGENT_PINE (-1.8 points) Message-Id indicates a non-spam MUA (Pine) > SPAM: X_AUTH_WARNING (-0.9 points) Found a X-Authentication-Warning header > SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_01_02 (-0.1 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 01 to 02 (low) > SPAM: [score: 1] > SPAM: RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM (0.4 points) RBL: Received via a relay in >relays.osirusoft.com > SPAM: [RBL check: found 209.16.20.218.relays.osirusoft.com., >type: 127.0.0.4] > SPAM: RCVD_IN_RFCI (2.3 points) RBL: Received via a relay in >ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org > SPAM: [RBL check: found 209.16.20.218.ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org., >type: 127.0.0.6] > SPAM: RCVD_IN_SBL (3.2 points) RBL: Received via SBLed relay, see >http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/ > SPAM: [RBL check: found 209.16.20.218.sbl.spamhaus.org.] > SPAM: X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC (2.7 points) RBL: DNSBL: sender is Confirmed Spam Source > SPAM: > SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results ---------------------
[on-topic message snipped] Hmm, so we have 3 pieces of evidence that it isn't spam, four that it is (all of which are from blacklists), the blacklist scores were enough to get the message scored as spam, and yet it wasn't spam. Are we sure we want to be investing this much trust in RBLs, at least for this mailing list? Or is there a mountain of spam that hasn't made it to the list thanks solely to the RBL rules that makes this false positive worth the trouble? I have CCed the sender of the message so that he is aware that many of his mails may be discarded without ever being seen by the intended recipients, due to aggressive spam filters that rely upon RBLs to determine whether a message is spam, instead of a message's actual content. Also, Mr. Beach, many readers of Xpert list may not see your message anyway, because its subject was rewritten to include the string "*****SPAM*****", and their MUAs may as a result sort the message to /dev/null. Those same people will probably not see my message for the same reason. -- G. Branden Robinson | Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math.
msg11178/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
