On 3/14/2025 8:27 AM, Matija Nalis wrote:
IIRC, having "tflags MAILING_LIST_MULTI nice" adds default negative score
automatically.
Just like having the rule without "tflags nice" (and whithout explicitly specified
"score") adds positive +1 score automatically.
Th
On 2025-03-14 at 02:46:06 UTC-0400 (Fri, 14 Mar 2025 02:46:06 -0400)
Jared Hall via users
is rumored to have said:
SA 3.4.6
I see this negative scoring rule in many spams:
MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1
Spamples appreciated.
Seems counter-intuitive but I could not find a score for this rule
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 02:46:06AM -0400, Jared Hall via users wrote:
> MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1
> Seems counter-intuitive but I could not find a score for this rule anywhere.
IIRC, having "tflags MAILING_LIST_MULTI nice" adds default negative score
automatically.
Just like having
SA 3.4.6
I see this negative scoring rule in many spams:
MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1
Seems counter-intuitive but I could not find a score for this rule anywhere.
Is this just an issue with version 3.4?
Thanks,
-- Jared Hall
ve out the value of an exclusion of them from the
MAILING_LIST_MULTI rule, there will probably be some other work towards
catching that spam. This is something like the fourth time people have
brought this problem up here, so it is not going away until SA starts marking
Google Groups mail as spam o
there, but that's another story.) I find
MAILING_LIST_MULTI to be useful, because it counteracts the "DKIM
failed
because the list munged the message" and things like that. So just
excluding google groups doesn't really seem right.
Well, the original rationale of that rule wa
Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 9:12:20 AM, you wrote:
MUf> Yeah, typical googlegroups.com spam.
MUf> This is abused for over a decade.
On 25.02.25 13:18, Niamh Holding wrote:
So maybe mail from googlegroups should no longer get a -1 score?
On 2025-02-25 at 08:27:58 UTC-0500 (Tue, 25 Feb 2025
m that doesn't use
> that mechanism.
>
> I will look at adding an extra condition in that meta-rule.
I am on multiple googlegroups. (Yes, it's a bug that anyone hosts their
mailinglists there, but that's another story.) I find
MAILING_LIST_MULTI to be useful, because it count
On 2025-02-25 at 08:27:58 UTC-0500 (Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:27:58 +0100)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
is rumored to have said:
Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 9:12:20 AM, you wrote:
MUf> Yeah, typical googlegroups.com spam.
MUf> This is abused for over a decade.
On 25.02.25 13:18, Niamh Holding wrote:
So
Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 9:12:20 AM, you wrote:
MUf> Yeah, typical googlegroups.com spam.
MUf> This is abused for over a decade.
On 25.02.25 13:18, Niamh Holding wrote:
So maybe mail from googlegroups should no longer get a -1 score?
googlegroups get no score afaik.
The issue is that they
Hello Matus,
Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 9:12:20 AM, you wrote:
MUf> Yeah, typical googlegroups.com spam.
MUf> This is abused for over a decade.
So maybe mail from googlegroups should no longer get a -1 score?
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
* 0.2 FROM_FMBLA_NEWDOM14 From domain was registered in last 7-14
* days
* 1.6 NH_HOLTRBL_TWICE Received from a source listed twice at
* rbl.holtain.net
* -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
* manager
FROM_FMBLA_NEWDOM14 From domain was registered in last 7-14
* days
* 1.6 NH_HOLTRBL_TWICE Received from a source listed twice at
* rbl.holtain.net
* -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
* manager
X-Spam-Relays
13 matches
Mail list logo
