>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I want to try and detect malicious uri in the body of emails better and
>> thought there might be something I could use, since I imagine google
>> have
>> a good list of them. I found this link, but it fails to install.
>>
>> http://search.cpan.org/~danborn/Bundle-SafeBrowsing
> Hi everyone,
>
> I want to try and detect malicious uri in the body of emails better and
> thought there might be something I could use, since I imagine google have
> a good list of them. I found this link, but it fails to install.
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~danborn/Bundle-SafeBrowsing/lib/Bundl
Hi everyone,
I want to try and detect malicious uri in the body of emails better and thought
there might be something I could use, since I imagine google have a good list
of them. I found this link, but it fails to install.
http://search.cpan.org/~danborn/Bundle-SafeBrowsing/lib/Bundle/SafeBrow
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:40:27 -0400
Alex wrote:
> Even 2.8 points for merely the word "xanax" alone, without any other
> basis for consideration, sounds too high.
Actually it's looking for something that looks like xanax, but isn't
xanax.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, these FUZZY rules
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Bill Cole
wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2017, at 21:35, Alex wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
Hi, this rule hit a citibank.com email. Adding 1.8 points simply for
the phrase "your account security" does not seem reasonable.
Apr 24 20:13:18.660 [28524] dbg: rules:
Hi,
>> It also hit a secondary RBL for an IP that it shouldn't have, as well
>> as bayes00 and hostkarma_bl, totaling 5.044, making it spam. The IP
>> that was hit was 52.40.63.1, mta1b3.c1-t.msyscloud.com.
>>
>> I would have included that initially, but I figured any one phrase
>> shouldn't be en
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7252
can it be solved in 3.4.2 ?
only tools i have here is sigtool from clamav that can decode it, so i
could for the time make a clamav local sig that reject this spam mails
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your explanation, I hadn't appreciated that there was higher
precision being hidden.
Thanks,
Geoff
> On 25 Apr 2017, at 09:39, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>
> Hoi Geoff,
>
> The scores actually have a precision of 3 numerals after the dot. The
> actual score of NO_RELAYS = -0.001.
Hoi Geoff,
The scores actually have a precision of 3 numerals after the dot. The
actual score of NO_RELAYS = -0.001. While rounding would still give you
3.0 as final score for this message, the actual score is below 3.
When you would have a ham/spam threshold at exactly 3, and the final
score wou
Geoff Soper skrev den 2017-04-25 10:27:
Can anyone explain why this isn't scoring 3.0?
take your calculator:
1000/3 = ?
if you take that results with a good calculator and * 3 it will say 1000
as a result, but most cheap ones say 999 :=)
where did that 1 go ?
A score of -0.0 is actually not 0, it is something like -0.01 (or smaller).
If it had a score of actual 0, it wouldn't trigger.
As such, due to rounding, it ends up becoming 2.9, instead of 3.
On 04/25/2017 09:27 AM, Geoff Soper wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, Score=2.9
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.0 NO_R
X-Spam-Status: No, Score=2.9
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
* 3.0 GS_NO_RLYS_PHP No description available.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on
server.alphaworks.co.uk
Can anyone explain why this isn't scoring 3.0?
:)
12 matches
Mail list logo
