At 02:56 15-10-2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
In both cases the last two Received: headers in each message are
forgeries as no SMTP transaction occurred. I'm sure this violates more
than one SMTP RFC, but I doubt Gmane will change the way they do this
any time soon.
I don't think that there is any
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Whether Gmane is violating RFC or not isn't my concern. What is my
concern is that the way they create these headers is breaking the two
rules in the subject line. Apparently a fix is already in place to
prevent these two rules from being applied to li
On 10/17/2013 2:09 PM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> I answer privately since this really isn't about SpamAssassin any more, and
> SpamAssassin isn't about RFC conformance.
Oh, but it does directly relate to the above two rules. And I believe
this is a healthy discussion. It will educate others as to
On 10/16/2013 3:01 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
>> Operators of newsgroups which mirror/archive mailing
>> lists, and allow posting from a web interface, are adding forged
>> Received: headers before sending an email to the respective list
>> server.
>
> In what way are they forged?
I'm to this list
>Operators of newsgroups which mirror/archive mailing
>lists, and allow posting from a web interface, are adding forged
>Received: headers before sending an email to the respective list
>server.
In what way are they forged? Do they contain addresses that doesn't match the
system adding the receiv
On 10/15/2013 4:15 PM, David B Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2013 2:47 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2013 09:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
These two rules are adding 4.0 pts [...]
Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required)
pts r
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 10/14/2013 2:47 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
On 10/12/2013 09:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
These two rules are adding 4.0 pts [...]
Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required)
pts rule name description
--
On 10/12/2013 9:28 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Steve, the one who wrote this regex, would you please explain your
>> reasoning behind giving this rule a score so high as 2.8,
>
> That score was auto-assigned by masscheck, where it is doing quite well:
>
On 10/14/2013 2:47 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 09:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> These two rules are adding 4.0 pts [...]
>> Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required)
>> pts rule name description
>> ---
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> and engage in discussion WRT lowering the score, eliminating the
>> overlap with the other bare IP HELO rules, etc?
On 10/12/2013 07:28 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> It seems that 94% of the ham hits in masscheck are against list mail,
> and none of the spam
On 10/12/2013 09:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> These two rules are adding 4.0 pts [...]
> Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required)
> pts rule name description
> -
> 2.8 FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 FSL_H
On 10/13/2013 11:07 AM, John Hardin wrote:
...
> Yes. It will take a day or two to make it through masscheck. And we've
> had corpora starvation issues the last few weeks; if the ham corpus gets
> thin again updates may be delayed.
FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2
3am CDT w/score 2.8
11am CDT w/score 2.4
Upd
On 10/13/2013 2:17 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/13/2013 12:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, John Hardin wrote:
> And we've had corpora starvation issues the last few weeks; if
the ham > corpus gets thin again updates may be delaye
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/13/2013 12:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, John Hardin wrote:
> And we've had corpora starvation issues the last few weeks; if the ham
> corpus gets thin again updates may be delayed.
Yeah, we're starved for ham again; I
On 10/13/2013 12:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, John Hardin wrote:
And we've had corpora starvation issues the last few weeks; if the
ham corpus gets thin again updates may be delayed.
Yeah, we're starved for ham again; I don't know how quickly this
change will go out, sorry.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, John Hardin wrote:
And we've had corpora starvation issues the last few weeks; if the ham
corpus gets thin again updates may be delayed.
Yeah, we're starved for ham again; I don't know how quickly this change
will go out, sorry.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 10/12/2013 9:28 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Steve, the one who wrote this regex, would you please explain your
reasoning behind giving this rule a score so high as 2.8,
That score was auto-assigned by masschec
On 10/12/2013 9:28 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Steve, the one who wrote this regex, would you please explain your
>> reasoning behind giving this rule a score so high as 2.8,
>
> That score was auto-assigned by masscheck, where it is doing quite well:
>
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Steve, the one who wrote this regex, would you please explain your
reasoning behind giving this rule a score so high as 2.8,
That score was auto-assigned by masscheck, where it is doing quite well:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?rule=FSL_HELO_BARE_IP
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required)
Why did you lower the required score?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732
On 10/12/2013 1:04 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner skrev den 2013-10-12 18:26:
>
>> FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 needs to have a -much- lower score, or be eliminated
>> entirely, as it overlaps with at least 3 other tests, as pointed out
>> previously by another user. If a message makes it throug
Stan Hoeppner skrev den 2013-10-12 18:26:
FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 needs to have a -much- lower score, or be
eliminated
entirely, as it overlaps with at least 3 other tests, as pointed out
previously by another user. If a message makes it through Gmane, and
Debian, and then gets flagged by my "stock
22 matches
Mail list logo
