On 13/01/2011 21:06, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
Thank you all for your quick responses and suggestions. I went ahead and
adjusted the threshold from 3.00 to 5.00. I'll continue to monitor how the
server is reacting to spam as we move forward.
Thanks again for your help.
-Brendan
The method I use, a
Thank you all for your quick responses and suggestions. I went ahead and
adjusted the threshold from 3.00 to 5.00. I'll continue to monitor how the
server is reacting to spam as we move forward.
Thanks again for your help.
-Brendan
Brendan Murtagh wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Many of our employee
Brendan Murtagh wrote:
Many of our employees have BlackBerry devices as well as iPhones, Droids,
etc. However, the only device that is getting flagged as spam by
SpamAssassin is BlackBerry. It doesn't matter if a new email is composed or
its a reply. As long as its being sent from the device, it'
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:57 -0500, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> On 2011/01/13 1:40 PM, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
> > tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.00,
> > RATWARE_RCVD_BONUS_SPC=1.00,VOWEL_URI_5=1.00,NO_RDNS2=0.01,MR_DIFF_MID=1.00
> > version=3.2.5
> Yes, 3.0 is too low, but so is your SA version. None of those 1.
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:40 -0800, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
> [...] As long as its being sent from the device, it's being tagged
> with some of the tests listed below. The emails are arriving, however they
> are being delivered into the Spam folder and not the Inbox due to our mail
> server settings
On 2011/01/13 1:40 PM, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
X-spam-flag: YES
X-spam-status: Yes, hits=3.01 required=3.00
tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.00,RATWARE_RCVD_BONUS_SPC=1.00,VOWEL_URI_5=1.00,NO_RDNS2=0.01,MR_DIFF_MID=1.00
version=3.2.5
X-spam-level: ***
X-spam-checker-version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (1.1)
Yes, 3.
Brendan
I'd suggest a score of 3 is quite low to be marked as spam, I usually start
at 5 at least if not higher.
I'd also look at making sure the BB is sending from the correct company
domains and not the generic blackberry domains.
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
On 13 January 2011 18:40, Bren
On 13/01/2011 3:10 PM, Brendan Murtagh wrote:
We are running SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (1.1) with IceWarp Mail Server and
currently the following are whitelisted within IceWarp:
*.bis.na.blackberry.com
*.blackberry.com
*.blackberry.net
A score of 3.0 is much too low for determining if an e-mail is spam
Thanks John, that was exactly the feedback I was requesting. Yes, that is
my
MTA's header and I'll add the qualification you suggest. I was assuming
(oops, shouldn't do that) that "Received =~" meant the first, non-local
Recieved line. Evidently (from your comment about forgeries), SA uses ALL
re
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
You could, of course, check the helo instead.
Isn't the HELO easily forged?
Yeah (that's why I suggested a rule using rdns), but that has nothing to
do with the documentation about the pseudo headers in question (which is
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> You could, of course, check the helo instead.
Isn't the HELO easily forged?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
FWIW, if you were to write the rules using the
X-Spam-Relays-External pseudo header (or X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted
for older versions of SA) you could write gen
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, if you were to write the rules using the
> >> X-Spam-Relays-External pseudo header (or X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted
> >> for older versions of SA) you could write gener
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
FWIW, if you were to write the rules using the
X-Spam-Relays-External pseudo header (or X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted
for older versions of SA) you could write generic rules that work
for everyone (or survive changes to your mail top
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> FWIW, if you were to write the rules using the
> X-Spam-Relays-External pseudo header (or X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted
> for older versions of SA) you could write generic rules that work
> for everyone (or survive changes to your mail topology).
...can y
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
> John, it almost worked.
>
> The "from blah.blah.blah.blackberry.com is at the beginning of the header.
> So \s needed to be ^ instead. Anyhow, Thanks again.
d'oh!
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ry 08, 2007 3:52 PM
To: Dan Barker
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Blackberry email
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
How's this? Too loose?
header CRACKBERRY Received =~ /blackberry.com\b/i
/\.blackberry\.com\b/i
It'll trust forgeries, though.
Example header:
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:52 PM
To: Dan Barker
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Blackberry email
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
> How's this? Too loose?
>
> header CRACKBERRY Received =~ /blackberry.com\b/i
/\.blackberry\.com\b/i
It'll
t forgeries), SA uses ALL
received headers for these checks.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: John D. Hardin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:52 PM
To: Dan Barker
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Blackberry email
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
> b) Maybe I'd be better off with a few points (vs -100 from a
> whitelist) if the received_from ends blackberry. I could write a
> rule for that, and score say -4.
Maybe the core SA should add a beigelist_from_rcvd that scores -2 or
so, for those MTAs you d
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Dan Barker wrote:
> How's this? Too loose?
>
> header CRACKBERRY Received =~ /blackberry.com\b/i
/\.blackberry\.com\b/i
It'll trust forgeries, though.
> Example header:
>
> Received: from smtp01.bis.na.blackberry.com [216.9.248.48] by
> mail.visioncomm.net with ESMTP (SM
Thanks for the votes for answer b)!
>>b) Maybe I'd be better off with a few points (vs -100 from a whitelist) if
>>the received_from ends blackberry. I could write a rule for that, and
score
>>say -4.
>
>Write a rule to score the message by -2 if it is received from
*.blackberry.com
>
>Regards,
>-
At 07:44 08-02-2007, Dan Barker wrote:
Blackberry emails trigger a bunch of BASE64 rules, that are not meaningful.
It's just the way it works.
b) Maybe I'd be better off with a few points (vs -100 from a whitelist) if
the received_from ends blackberry. I could write a rule for that, and score
sa
23 matches
Mail list logo
