On 2/24/2021 9:43 PM, John Hardin wrote:
The __XM_RANDOM header rule is intended to catch the specific
condition of the email, the scored XM_RANDOM meta is intended to add
points for when that condition indicates spam.
Ouch, I figured as much. With a name like XM_RANDOM, it's gotta be good :
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Jared Hall wrote:
On 2/24/2021 9:10 AM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
that match "X-Mailer =~ /q(?!q?mail|\d|[-\w]*=+;)[^u]/i"
AND the body DOESN'T have has Invisible Text Styles AND there is no
In-Reply-To header. Seems a little excessive to me. Points added for
good behavio
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Alan wrote:
After a little more research, a better regex for an obfuscated BTC address is
/[13][ \-]([a-km-zA-HJ-NP-Z0-9][ \-]){25,32}[a-km-zA-HJ-NP-Z0-9]/
It might be worth adding = and _ to the obfuscating delimiters. YMMV.
I've updated __BITCOIN_ID with -, = and _ obf
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Alan wrote:
I've seen a recent flood of "I hacked your camera and caught you doing stuff"
emails. I doubt they'll continue for a long time, but I made some rules to
target them. Find them here https://pastebin.com/B5Q6emBU
There are already rules for that sort of thing in
On 2021-02-24 17:52, I wrote:
I've seen a recent flood of "I hacked your camera and caught you doing
stuff" emails. I doubt they'll continue for a long time, but I made
some rules to target them. Find them here https://pastebin.com/B5Q6emBU
--
For SpamAsassin Users List
After a little more re
I've seen a recent flood of "I hacked your camera and caught you doing
stuff" emails. I doubt they'll continue for a long time, but I made some
rules to target them. Find them here https://pastebin.com/B5Q6emBU
--
For SpamAsassin Users List
On 2/24/2021 9:10 AM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
that match "X-Mailer =~ /q(?!q?mail|\d|[-\w]*=+;)[^u]/i"
AND the body DOESN'T have has Invisible Text Styles AND there is no
In-Reply-To header.
Seems a little excessive to me. Points added for good behavior? Am I
reading that right?
I am a guy
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 08:10:48 -0700
lbutlr wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2021, at 7:10, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
>
> > that match "X-Mailer =~ /q(?!q?mail|\d|[-\w]*=+;)[^u]/i"
> >
> > Is "Qboxmail" the problem?
>
> Yes.
> > Since this is the name of our company are there any chances to keep
> > it without c
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, lbutlr wrote:
On 24 Feb 2021, at 7:10, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
Since this is the name of our company are there any chances to keep it
without catching the rule?
Score the rule down, of create a specific rule that counters that score to
match you own header.
That helps f
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that email sent from our webmail are catched always by XM_RANDOM
rule.
The reason is that we add an header:
X-Mailer: Qboxmail Webmail 1.2.3
that match "X-Mailer =~ /q(?!q?mail|\d|[-\w]*=+;)[^u]/i"
Is "Qboxmail" the problem? Since t
On 24 Feb 2021, at 7:10, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that email sent from our webmail are catched always by
XM_RANDOM rule.
And what is the score of that rule?
that match "X-Mailer =~ /q(?!q?mail|\d|[-\w]*=+;)[^u]/i"
Is "Qboxmail" the problem?
Yes.
Since this is the name of our
Hi,
I noticed that email sent from our webmail are catched always by
XM_RANDOM rule.
The reason is that we add an header:
X-Mailer: Qboxmail Webmail 1.2.3
that match "X-Mailer =~ /q(?!q?mail|\d|[-\w]*=+;)[^u]/i"
Is "Qboxmail" the problem? Since this is the name of our company are
there any
12 matches
Mail list logo
