Hi
This is the first time I have suggested a rule change to this list, I'd be
grateful if someone could let me know if my message is useful.
The BUGGY_CGI test is coded to indicate a message is not spam when the
X-Mailer is "NMS FormMail". However the current header test does not match
the latest
Egads! I was bouncing SAtalk email since last weekend, so I am resending
the below question. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mad
Martian
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] BUGGY_CGI
Egads! I was bouncing SAtalk email since last weekend, so I am resending
the below question. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mad
Martian
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] BUGGY_CGI
Hi,
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:52:40 +0100 "Darren Shrubsole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still getting a BUGGY_CGI firing when using NMS FormMail.
>
> The relevant headers are:
>
> X-Mailer: NMS FormMail 3.08c1
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0
> tests=BUGGY_CGI
> ver
I'm still getting a BUGGY_CGI firing when using NMS FormMail.
The relevant headers are:
X-Mailer: NMS FormMail 3.08c1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0
tests=BUGGY_CGI
version=2.54
Should it still be firing? Or is that a bug?
Darren.
> Mad Martian wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2
Mad Martian wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:53:27 -0700:
> Ok, I switched to NMS FormMail version 3.08c1 and I get the same
> BUGGY_CGI result. Is there some configuration I need to tweak? Here are
> my variables:
>
According to Martin:
> It looks for "Below is the result of your feedback form" in
Mad Martian wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:00:01 -0700:
> Then what should I be using? The latest FormMail from Matt's script
> archive is not an open relay when properly configured (which it is).
>
Look at Bob's reply.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Ser
Hello Martin,
>> I am using a very simple and standard FormMail form on my website and
>> forms sent to me from my own web site are getting marked as spam!
>>
Look at the headers of the feedback form; since it comes from your
own site it will probably have the site user ID and/or IP in
one of th
Matt
Kettler
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:22 PM
To: Spam Sucks; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] BUGGY_CGI?
At 12:17 PM 6/29/03 -0700, Spam Sucks wrote:
>Anyone know what Spamassassin is testing to trip the BUGGY_CGI sensor?
>Is there a web site that lists the tests of each of
= 1;
$send_confirmation_mail = 0;
$confirmation_text = <<'END_OF_CONFIRMATION';
Thanks,
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Apthorpe
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtal
Thanks Bob! You read my mind!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mad
Martian
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] BUGGY_CGI?
Then what should I be using? The latest FormMail from Matt's s
ECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] BUGGY_CGI?
Spam Sucks wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:17:50 -0700:
> I am using a very simple and standard FormMail form on my website and
> forms sent to me from my own web site are getting marked as spam!
>
You shouldn't use that one! Really.
Kai
--
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:17:50 -0700 "Spam Sucks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Anyone know what Spamassassin is testing to trip the BUGGY_CGI sensor?
> Is there a web site that lists the tests of each of the default
> settings? I could only find lists of the default scores and descriptions
> (e
Spam Sucks wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:17:50 -0700:
> I am using a very simple and standard FormMail form on my website and
> forms sent to me from my own web site are getting marked as spam!
>
You shouldn't use that one! Really.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive
At 12:17 PM 6/29/03 -0700, Spam Sucks wrote:
Anyone know what Spamassassin is testing to trip the BUGGY_CGI sensor?
Is there a web site that lists the tests of each of the default
settings? I could only find lists of the default scores and descriptions
(even on the spamassasin.org site).
The messag
At Sun Jun 29 20:17:50 2003, Spam Sucks wrote:
>
> Anyone know what Spamassassin is testing to trip the BUGGY_CGI sensor?
> Is there a web site that lists the tests of each of the default
I find it easiest to simply look in the source code.
> settings? I could only find lists of the default scor
Anyone know what Spamassassin is testing to trip the BUGGY_CGI sensor?
Is there a web site that lists the tests of each of the default
settings? I could only find lists of the default scores and descriptions
(even on the spamassasin.org site).
The message I get is:
BUGGY_CGI (2.8 points)
At 07:37 PM 10/3/02 +0200, Arie Slob wrote:
>Simon Matthews wrote:
>
>Nah... that's Dutch, not German
My apologies to German and Dutch speakers around the world!
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http
Simon Matthews wrote:
> If I understand it, "BUGGY_CGI" is supposed to check for "Here is the
> result of your ..."
>
> This email had the same text, but translated into German.
>
> I am also seeing many instances of the same URL -- perhaps we need a
> check for it?
>
Nah... that's Dutch, not
Actually, that looks more like Dutch. "Donderdag" is not German for
Thursday - that word would be "Donnerstag".
Chris Kalin
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 03,
If I understand it, "BUGGY_CGI" is supposed to check for "Here is the
result of your ..."
This email had the same text, but translated into German.
I am also seeing many instances of the same URL -- perhaps we need a check
for it?
Simon
-- Forwarded message --
Return-Path: <
I just received an email that is not spam, but contains the phrase to
set off BUGGY_CGI (which is a bad description of what this is, since
it's not a buggy or broken CGI, it's just a text phrase).
This scores 5.09 (and even scored 3.99 in 2.01), which seems way too
high. The phrase in question i
22 matches
Mail list logo
