On 28/03/11 23:44, Daniel McDonald wrote:
I just got a spam that scored relatively low (mostly due to DNSWL_MED). But
it also contained an html attachment that would have scored significantly
more had it been part of the main message.
I put it at http://pastebin.com/vXF0vGVS
When I run the com
On 03/28, Daniel McDonald wrote:
>I just got a spam that scored relatively low (mostly due to DNSWL_MED).
Was that because you don't have trusted_networks properly configured?
What was the IP address that got looked up in DNSWL?
>I put it at [1]http://pastebin.com/vXF0vGVS
Was it 216.82
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, David B Funk wrote:
A while back I tried creating some rules that explicitly looked for messages
with that perverted mime labeling but they FP'ed all over the place as there
are multiple ham sources that make the same faux-pas.
There are several subrules in that vein in m
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Daniel McDonald wrote:
I just got a spam that scored relatively low (mostly due to DNSWL_MED). But
it also contained an html attachment that would have scored significantly
more had it been part of the main message.
I put it at http://pastebin.com/vXF0vGVS
When I run the
I just got a spam that scored relatively low (mostly due to DNSWL_MED). But
it also contained an html attachment that would have scored significantly
more had it been part of the main message.
I put it at http://pastebin.com/vXF0vGVS
When I run the complete message, I only get a few hits, mostly
On 03/25/2011 04:59 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Are there REALLY that MANY massmailers that can not post
> valid URL's? Something is rotten in the state od Denmark...
Yes. Here is an example of ham in this category (obfuscated from an
opt-in newsletter I received a few days ago):
> .. yo
