> On Oct 13, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > I've received a spam that his both HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI and
> > RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED. I believe it's because both BSP and HABEAS were bought
> > by ReturnPath Inc.
> >
> > However
On Oct 13, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I've received a spam that his both HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI and
> RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED. I believe it's because both BSP and HABEAS were bought
> by ReturnPath Inc.
>
> However those two rules seems to be superflou
On 10/13/2010 1:26 PM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2010/10/13 12:25 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
I've received a spam that his both HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI and
RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED. I believe it's because both BSP and HABEAS were
bought
by ReturnPath Inc.
There's goo
On 2010/10/13 12:25 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
I've received a spam that his both HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI and
RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED. I believe it's because both BSP and HABEAS were bought
by ReturnPath Inc.
There's good info on these rules in Bug 6247
https://is
Hello,
I've received a spam that his both HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI and
RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED. I believe it's because both BSP and HABEAS were bought
by ReturnPath Inc.
However those two rules seems to be superflous to each other and while I can
of course manually disable them or lower the
Hello Richard,
Friday, March 11, 2005, 7:44:58 AM, you wrote:
GR> I believe that this domain is in fact legitimate and the messages in
GR> question are *not* spam. My little sister signed up for it and I got
GR> this crap in my inbox as result.
Obviously can't judge too much on this single messa
riginal Message-
From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 March 2005 01:29
To: R McGlue
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED
Hello R,
Thursday, March 10, 2005, 12:28:51 AM, you wrote:
RM> From: Alana Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RM> Subject: Updating m
I have a fix for that
score RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED 0
I don't give big negative points to anyone. To each his own though.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:29 PM
To: R McGlue
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subjec
s using the link you see
>> below:
>> http://www.bebo.com/fr1/10076492a285606901b140803462c883765683d20
RM> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0
RM> tests=BAYES_40,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
RM> RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2
RM> -4.3 RCVD_I
; below:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.bebo.com/fr1/10076492a285606901b140803462c883765683d20
>
>
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on baalam.qub.ac.uk
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
It looks to me like a probably legit birthday cards site, sending what is
supposed to be a legit request.
Now, from the name of the user, and the targeted address, it appears to be a
spammer/scammer misusing the site to try to harvest contact info. Since the
sender (birthdayalarm.com) is bonded,
ing the link you see
> below:
>
>
>
> http://www.bebo.com/fr1/10076492a285606901b140803462c883765683d20
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on baalam.qub.ac.uk
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
RCVD
12 matches
Mail list logo
