Hi Alex, sometimes I see this when the envelope from doesn't match the
header from. So what you think might pass SPF does not. That's my only
guess from looking at the example you posted. That example looked like it
would work perfectly. KAM
On Thu, May 5, 2022, 18:02 Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm
Ahh party lines. Almost as bad as using my parents' line for a modem and
they would pick it up. And rotary. You hated anybody with a nine in their
number.
I always wanted to know the history behind how the White House got its own
CO. I figured it was security related since it's 202-456- whic
On 2022 May 02, at 22:40, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Fascinating thread I just stumbled on. Yes, in early parts of the phone
> system, the letters were geographic and referenced the street for where the
> central office was located switching those calls. For example, in Arlington
> VA, my grand
Hi,
I'm trying to understand why some domains are not whitelisted even
though they pass SPF and are in my local welcomelist_auth entries. I'm
using policyd-spf with postfix, and it appears to be adding the
following header:
X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay domain -
client-ip=13.110.6.
On 5/5/22 14:28, Dave Wreski wrote:
No, that's how you train your corpora. If you manually look through
the headers of mail that's already been processed by your mail system,
the ham should be as close to BAYES_00 as possible, and spam should be
at BAYES_99. If that's not the case, then it's be
That's a great call, thanks. I grepped my mail files and didn't find
any SPAM_99 headers in any of them.
You should be looking for BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 in your corpus.
Thanks, Dave. I use my various mailboxes (sa-learn --ham --mbox
/home/thomas.cameron/mail/INBOX/[mailbox file] and then
On 5/5/22 11:59, Dave Wreski wrote:
You should probably check that none of your ham (i.e. non-spam)
messages contains SPAM_99 or SPAM_999. It can happen when spammers
poison your bayes database, and increased score in that case might
lead to legitimate mail being misclassified as a spam.
That
You should probably check that none of your ham (i.e. non-spam)
messages contains SPAM_99 or SPAM_999. It can happen when spammers
poison your bayes database, and increased score in that case might
lead to legitimate mail being misclassified as a spam.
That's a great call, thanks. I grepped m
On 5/5/22 11:47, Matija Nalis wrote:
On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 10:37:40AM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
I understand that turning knobs without understanding the consequences can
do bad thing, but almost all of the spam that gets through SA on my server
has SPAM_99 or SPAM_999 set in the headers. I
You should probably check that none of your ham (i.e. non-spam)
messages contains SPAM_99 or SPAM_999. It can happen when spammers
poison your bayes database, and increased score in that case might
lead to legitimate mail being misclassified as a spam.
On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 10:37:40AM -0500, Th
On 5/5/22 10:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.05.22 um 17:37 schrieb Thomas Cameron:
I understand that turning knobs without understanding the
consequences can do bad thing, but almost all of the spam that gets
through SA on my server has SPAM_99 or SPAM_999 set in the headers.
It is obviously
I understand that turning knobs without understanding the consequences
can do bad thing, but almost all of the spam that gets through SA on my
server has SPAM_99 or SPAM_999 set in the headers. It is obviously spam,
so I don't really get how it wasn't flagged, but it wasn't. What are the
risks
12 matches
Mail list logo
