On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Marcio Vogel Merlone dos Santos wrote:
Hi all,
Trying to match a message using uri_detail with no luck. On body I have
something like this:
Something →
That "something" is changed on a daily basis, so I am trying to match the
→ which is common to all variations, and fai
On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:05 PM, RW wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 16:06:10 -0300 Marcio Vogel Merlone dos Santos wrote:
>
>> Trying to match a message using uri_detail with no luck. On body I
>> have something like this:
>>
>> Something →
> &rarr represents a '→' (right arrow) character, IIWY I'd t
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 16:06:10 -0300
Marcio Vogel Merlone dos Santos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Trying to match a message using uri_detail with no luck. On body I
> have something like this:
>
> Something →
>
> That "something" is changed on a daily basis, so I am trying to match
> the → which is commo
On Jun 4, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Paul Stead wrote:
>
> Certainly worth letting QA do it's thing and autoscore?
My worry about autoscore is that if it looks at network tests, particularly
RBLs, then it may reduce the value of the rule. The primary value of this rule
is for early botnet runs before
The rules looks to be performing better in masscheck after the updates to
the corpus checking:
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190604-r1860591-n/__BOGUS_MIME_VER_01/detail
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190604-r1860591-n/__BOGUS_MIME_VER_02/detail
Certainly worth letting QA do it's
Hi all,
Trying to match a message using uri_detail with no luck. On body I have
something like this:
Something →
That "something" is changed on a daily basis, so I am trying to match
the → which is common to all variations, and failing miserably. I
have tried the obvious and some (desperate
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:10:51 +0300
Savvas Karagiannidis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my guess is that for some reason an empty line is inserted in the
> email somewhere above the headers and before the message is processed
> by spamassassin. This will cause all headers below this empty line to
> be treated as
Hi,
my guess is that for some reason an empty line is inserted in the email
somewhere above the headers and before the message is processed by
spamassassin. This will cause all headers below this empty line to be
treated as the actual body of the message, so all missing header tests
will hit
On 04.06.19 16:29, Stephan Fourie wrote:
My apologies, seems something went wrong with the formatting when it
was pasted to the pastebin. Here's a new example with spacing intact:
https://pastebin.com/raw/tQtSMQPs
In this example some of the other headers were also not 'seen'.
there's someth
Hi,
My apologies, seems something went wrong with the formatting when it was
pasted to the pastebin. Here's a new example with spacing intact:
https://pastebin.com/raw/tQtSMQPs
In this example some of the other headers were also not 'seen'.
Thanks!
Stephan
On 2019/06/04 10:55, Matus UHLAR -
+1. If it is a shortener, we should add it.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 03:57 hg user wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I noticed spam using ccuz url shortener in an italian spam
> advertising a sex site.
> I was wondering if it would be good to be added to __URL_SHORTENER or not.
> In this specific case it won't help
On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
> We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
> hitting on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have
> started during last week, which is when clients started complaining
> about false positive detections. Please see example
Hi,
I noticed spam using ccuz url shortener in an italian spam advertising
a sex site.
I was wondering if it would be good to be added to __URL_SHORTENER or not.
In this specific case it won't help to score higher but who knows in the
future?
13 matches
Mail list logo
