Re: Why was USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL triggered on this email, even though it's spam?

2023-03-20 Thread Greg Troxel
Bill Cole writes: > It can happen, particularly when a listed domain changes the way they > send email. I'm not sure I understand exactly what Dropbox is doing > here or how it is possible for a user to masquerade as PayPal, but I > suspect this is a new service of some sort. It seems to be a n

Re: Dropbox invoice phishing

2023-03-20 Thread jason hirsh
Technically you pommel m > On Mar 20, 2023, at 5:34 PM, Mark London wrote: > > Dropbox now has an invoice feature, that allows you to create a customized > invoice. So what this person did was to create an invoice that looks like > it’s coming from PayPal. Except for the fact that the From

Dropbox invoice phishing

2023-03-20 Thread Mark London
Dropbox now has an invoice feature, that allows you to create a customized invoice. So what this person did was to create an invoice that looks like it’s coming from PayPal. Except for the fact that the From address shows it is coming from Dropbox. Months ago I saw a similar problem with f

Re: Why was USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL triggered on this email, even though it's spam?

2023-03-20 Thread Bill Cole
On 2023-03-20 at 13:54:42 UTC-0400 (Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:54:42 -0400) Mark London is rumored to have said: I’ve never seen a false positive with USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL. It can happen, particularly when a listed domain changes the way they send email. I'm not sure I understand exactly what Dropbox

Re: Why was USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL triggered on this email, even though it's spam?

2023-03-20 Thread Greg Troxel
A quick grep shows: 4.00/updates_spamassassin_org/60_welcomelist_auth.cf:def_welcomelist_auth *@*.dropbox.com so the code is operating as designed. It seems that either dropbox is compromised, or dropbox is allowing user-generated content to go out under their domain. Either way it seem

Re: Why was USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL triggered on this email, even though it's spam?

2023-03-20 Thread Bill Cole
On 2023-03-20 at 13:17:25 UTC-0400 (Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:25 -0400) Mark London is rumored to have said: Can someone tell me why this paypal phishing email, managed to trigger USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL? Hard to be sure, since you didn't include any indication of the envelope sender address (a.k.a.

Re: Why was USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL triggered on this email, even though it's spam?

2023-03-20 Thread Mark London
I’ve never seen a false positive with USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL. > On Mar 20, 2023, at 1:48 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >  > >> Am 20.03.23 um 18:44 schrieb Mark London: >> It seems like it too high a negative score. > > then adjust it in local.cf > > the point of a WL is exactly to WL something -

Re: Why was USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL triggered on this email, even though it's spam?

2023-03-20 Thread Mark London
It seems like it too high a negative score. On 3/20/2023 1:24 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 20.03.23 um 18:17 schrieb Mark London: Can someone tell me why this paypal phishing email, managed to trigger USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL? Or put it another way. Why wasn't it detected as a phishing email? Than

Why was USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL triggered on this email, even though it's spam?

2023-03-20 Thread Mark London
Can someone tell me why this paypal phishing email, managed to trigger USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL? Or put it another way. Why wasn't it detected as a phishing email? Thanks. Received: from a39-208.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a39-208.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.39.208]) by PSFCMAIL.MIT.EDU (8.14.7/