Am 29.09.2015 um 23:45 schrieb coolhandluke:
based on just what i've found in the last 10 minutes, i would be very
careful about scoring anything related to {invalid|missing|extra}
headers too high. definitely test your rules extensively (with very low
scores) before rolling them out to produc
On 2015-09-28 14:32, Joe Quinn wrote:
If you don't want to be getting those emails, they are spam and you
should score it something reasonable that doesn't prevent you getting
other desired messages. While I don't have any specific examples of
ham without Message-ID, it's not a stretch to imagine
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:44 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Can you use something like:
header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
Are you seeing empty X-No-Relay headers? How about:
No, not empty.
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:44 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>> Can you use something like:
>>
>> header __L_X_NO_RELAYexists:X-No-Relay
>
> Are you seeing empty X-No-Relay headers? How about:
No, not empty. Typically they say:
X-No-Re
On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:17 PM, David B Funk wrote:
> By itself not a strong spam sign, but good for metas.
FWIW, I added this is a rule with 0.2 points. "Unfortunately," my user's
snowshoe hits today have all been hitting RDNS_NONE instead of this rule, so I
can't quite gauge its effectiveness
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Can you use something like:
header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
See also DUP_SUSP_HDR, which is in my sandbox but isn't performing well
enough against the corpora to get published:
http://
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Can you use something like:
header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
Are you seeing empty X-No-Relay headers? How about:
header__HAS_NO_RELAYX-No-Relay =~ /./
Oops. If yo
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Can you use something like:
header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
Are you seeing empty X-No-Relay headers? How about:
header__HAS_NO_RELAYX-No-Relay =~ /./
...which is in my sandbox, but just for eval, it's not
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> Can you use something like:
>
> header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
> tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
Actually, that should probably be bounded to something like:
tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple maxhits=10
Can you use something like:
header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
meta MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAY__L_X_NO_RELAY >= 8
describe MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAYSaw an inordinate number of X-No-Relay: headers
score MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAY 10.0
I couldn
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:29:15 -0700
Dave Warren wrote:
> You might also want to see if you can avoid greylisting some big
> senders. There is zero advantage in greylisting Google, Outlook.com,
> Outlook 365, Yahoo, AOL, etc, as you know they're real mail servers
> and you know they will retry. F
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:32:46 -0400
David Niklas wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:41:10 +0200 Antony wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 September 2015 at 22:35:55, David wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, I decided to store users personal filter rules
> > > in .spamassassin in their home dir, but I'm not sure how to se
12 matches
Mail list logo
