Hi Charles,
Yes, it was an incorrectly escaped forward slash in a subject rule.
On 2019/06/24 16:12, Charles Amstutz wrote:
Hi Charles,
My apologies, I forgot to provide feedback to the mailing list. Bad regex was
the cause of this problem for us, too. As soon as the custom rule was fixed,
the
> Hi Charles,
>
> My apologies, I forgot to provide feedback to the mailing list. Bad regex was
> the cause of this problem for us, too. As soon as the custom rule was fixed,
> the problem went away.
If I can ask, was it an incorrectly escaped special character? I think it is
the @ symbol break
Hi Charles,
My apologies, I forgot to provide feedback to the mailing list. Bad
regex was the cause of this problem for us, too. As soon as the custom
rule was fixed, the problem went away.
Kind Regards,
Stephan
On 2019/06/24 15:58, Charles Amstutz wrote:
But as has already been pointed o
> But as has already been pointed out it has the combination of
> MISSING_FROM and HK_RANDOM_FROM, and the latter is based on a
> From:addr test.
I saw this too, however, I thought I noticed a potentially bad regex (from
another custom rule) breaking mine. I think this is the case as when I re
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:10:51 +0300
Savvas Karagiannidis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my guess is that for some reason an empty line is inserted in the
> email somewhere above the headers and before the message is processed
> by spamassassin. This will cause all headers below this empty line to
> be treated as
Hi,
my guess is that for some reason an empty line is inserted in the email
somewhere above the headers and before the message is processed by
spamassassin. This will cause all headers below this empty line to be
treated as the actual body of the message, so all missing header tests
will hit
On 04.06.19 16:29, Stephan Fourie wrote:
My apologies, seems something went wrong with the formatting when it
was pasted to the pastebin. Here's a new example with spacing intact:
https://pastebin.com/raw/tQtSMQPs
In this example some of the other headers were also not 'seen'.
there's someth
Hi,
My apologies, seems something went wrong with the formatting when it was
pasted to the pastebin. Here's a new example with spacing intact:
https://pastebin.com/raw/tQtSMQPs
In this example some of the other headers were also not 'seen'.
Thanks!
Stephan
On 2019/06/04 10:55, Matus UHLAR -
On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
> We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
> hitting on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have
> started during last week, which is when clients started complaining
> about false positive detections. Please see example
On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 11:43:44 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
> > hitting on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have
> > started during last week, which is when client
On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
Hi,
We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically hitting
on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have started during
last week, which is when clients started complaining about false
positive detections. Please see examp
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018, RW wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 14:19:25 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
meta ENCRYPTED_MESSAGE __CT_ENCRYPTED
header __CT_ENCRYPTEDContent-Type
=~ /^multipart\/(?:x-)?(?:pgp-)?encrypted|application\/(?:x-)?pkcs7-mime/
__CT_ENCRYPTED is for now better solution, m
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 14:19:25 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> meta ENCRYPTED_MESSAGE __CT_ENCRYPTED
> header __CT_ENCRYPTEDContent-Type
> =~ /^multipart\/(?:x-)?(?:pgp-)?encrypted|application\/(?:x-)?pkcs7-mime/
>
> __CT_ENCRYPTED is for now better solution, mostly because of someone
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, micah anderson wrote:
> I had a message marked with:
>
> 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
> Subject:
>
> It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
> encrypted)
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:36:02 -0700 (PDT) John Hardin
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, micah anderson wrote:
>
> > I had a message marked with:
> >
> > 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
> > Subject:
> >
> > It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although o
On 15.06.18 09:04, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, micah anderson wrote:
I had a message marked with:
2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject:
It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
encrypted)
John Hardin
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, micah anderson wrote:
I had a message marked with:
2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject:
It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
encrypted)
John Hardin writes:
It may not be considering an encrypted me
John Hardin writes:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, micah anderson wrote:
>
>> I had a message marked with:
>>
>> 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
>> Subject:
>>
>> It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
>> encrypted)
>
> It may not be consid
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.06.18 19:37, micah anderson wrote:
2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject:
It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
encrypted) it also hit:
* 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing S
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, micah anderson wrote:
I had a message marked with:
2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject:
It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
encrypted)
It may not be considering an encrypted message part to be a text
On 12.06.18 19:37, micah anderson wrote:
2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject:
It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
encrypted) it also hit:
* 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
which makes sense, because the mail d
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:38, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> MISSING_SUBJECT is here because when message has no Subject:, it is highly
> probably spam.
Right. Well, my new accountant, being an external company of 16 people, insists
in sending messages without a subject, "because we always d
Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
> On 12.06.18 19:37, micah anderson wrote:
>>2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
>>Subject:
>>
>>It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
>>encrypted) it also hit:
>>
>>* 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject
On 12.06.18 19:37, micah anderson wrote:
2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject:
It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
encrypted) it also hit:
* 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
which makes sense, because the mail d
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 13.06.2018 um 01:37 schrieb micah anderson:
>> I had a message marked with:
>>
>> 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
>> Subject:
>>
>> It did not have a subject, but it did have content (although only
>> encrypted) it also hit:
>>
>
On 19/09/17 15:05, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/19/2017 9:11 AM, David Jones wrote:
I have had these in place for years. Maybe Kevin can consolidate and
integrate this into his KAM.cf so I could remove them or we could
eventually get them into the default SA ruleset after some testing.
Hi
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:06:58 -0500
David Jones wrote:
> header ENA_SUBJ_IS_SPACE Subject =~ /^ $/
> >>>
> >>> The OP said there was a space after 'Subject:', so that rule
> >>> wouldn't detect it.
> My point was supposed to be a single space should hit
> MISSING_SUBJECT and
On 09/19/2017 09:35 AM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:05:44 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/19/2017 9:11 AM, David Jones wrote:
I have had these in place for years. Maybe Kevin can consolidate
and integrate this into his KAM.cf so I could remove them or we
could eventually get them into
On 09/19/2017 09:03 AM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:32:12 -0500
David Jones wrote:
On 09/19/2017 08:20 AM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:11:03 -0500
David Jones wrote:
header ENA_SUBJ_IS_SPACE Subject =~ /^ $/
The OP said there was a space after 'Subject:', so that
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:05:44 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 9/19/2017 9:11 AM, David Jones wrote:
> > I have had these in place for years. Maybe Kevin can consolidate
> > and integrate this into his KAM.cf so I could remove them or we
> > could eventually get them into the default SA ruleset
On 9/19/2017 9:11 AM, David Jones wrote:
I have had these in place for years. Maybe Kevin can consolidate and
integrate this into his KAM.cf so I could remove them or we could
eventually get them into the default SA ruleset after some testing.
Hi David,
Thanks. In addition to KAM.cf, I mai
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:32:12 -0500
David Jones wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 08:20 AM, RW wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:11:03 -0500
> > David Jones wrote:
> >> header ENA_SUBJ_IS_SPACE Subject =~ /^ $/
> >
> > The OP said there was a space after 'Subject:', so that rule
> > wouldn'
On 09/19/2017 08:20 AM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:11:03 -0500
David Jones wrote:
On 09/19/2017 07:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Is it purposeful extra space though that might indicate spaminess?
Spample? Regards,
KAM
On September 19, 2017 8:13:09 AM EDT, RW
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Se
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:11:03 -0500
David Jones wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 07:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > Is it purposeful extra space though that might indicate spaminess?
> > Spample? Regards,
> > KAM
> >
> > On September 19, 2017 8:13:09 AM EDT, RW
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 201
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:13:09 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:27:13 +0100
> Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
> > I've had a number of emails with no subject not triggering the
> > MISSING_SUBJECT rule - only to discover that the spammers have added
> > a white space after 'Subject:'
> Some pe
On 09/19/2017 07:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Is it purposeful extra space though that might indicate spaminess? Spample?
Regards,
KAM
On September 19, 2017 8:13:09 AM EDT, RW wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:27:13 +0100
Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I've had a number of emails with n
Is it purposeful extra space though that might indicate spaminess? Spample?
Regards,
KAM
On September 19, 2017 8:13:09 AM EDT, RW wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:27:13 +0100
>Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
>> I've had a number of emails with no subject not triggering the
>> MISSING_SUBJECT rule - onl
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:27:13 +0100
Sebastian Arcus wrote:
> I've had a number of emails with no subject not triggering the
> MISSING_SUBJECT rule - only to discover that the spammers have added
> a white space after 'Subject:' - which appears to fool the code into
> thinking that there is an act
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:01:15 -0500
Greg Troxel wrote:
> ...
> All four had MISSING_SUBJECT, but when I looked at the headers they
> had valid subjects.
> ...
> So I wonder if there is some recent breakage in the MISSING_SUBJECT
> rule.
I'm not seeing this.
Perhaps something is corrupting your he
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I remember I have asked the same some years ago.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/104646
the explanation was that the current rule detects empty subject the
same as
no subject at all. IIRC it was in fact the same rule as it is now:
header
On 19.11.14 19:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
i have here a message hitting "BAYES_95, CUST_DNSWL_2, CUST_DNSWL_5,
DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_NONE" but *not* MISSING_SUBJECT
most likely because "Subject: " in the headers
is that inten
Hello Reindl,
Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 6:01:32 PM, you wrote:
RH> should there not be a "SUBJECT_EMPTY" rule
header __NH_BLANK_SUB Subject =~ /^\s*$/
describe__NH_BLANK_SUB Subject is blank
metaNH_EMPTY_SUB
On 11/19/2014 07:29 PM, Axb wrote:
On 11/19/2014 07:25 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 11/19/2014 1:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
back to list :-)
Sorry about that.
> i thought about a by default 0 scored rule enabled and scored only
via "local.cf" by the admin or very low scored (0.001) which
Am 19.11.2014 um 19:25 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 11/19/2014 1:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
back to list :-)
Sorry about that
no problem
i thought about a by default 0 scored rule enabled and scored only
via "local.cf" by the admin or very low scored (0.001) which might make
the differen
On 11/19/2014 07:25 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 11/19/2014 1:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
back to list :-)
Sorry about that.
> i thought about a by default 0 scored rule enabled and scored only
via "local.cf" by the admin or very low scored (0.001) which might make
the difference FN/caught
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
i thought about a by default 0 scored rule enabled and scored only via
"local.cf" by the admin or very low scored (0.001) which might make the
difference FN/caught and should not hurt a legit message anything with else
OK
It's more useful to do that
On 11/19/2014 1:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
back to list :-)
Sorry about that.
> i thought about a by default 0 scored rule enabled and scored only
via "local.cf" by the admin or very low scored (0.001) which might make
the difference FN/caught and should not hurt a legit message anything
wi
back to list :-)
Am 19.11.2014 um 19:13 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 11/19/2014 1:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Hi
i have here a message hitting "BAYES_95, CUST_DNSWL_2, CUST_DNSWL_5,
DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_NONE" but *not* MISS
> They no longer hit enough spam to be worth keeping, so they were removed.
> Just remove the scores when you upgrade.
>
> Loren
Thanks,
I've suspected that :)
Leon
Loren Wilton wrote on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:09:34 -0700:
> They no longer hit enough spam to be worth keeping, so they were removed.
> Just remove the scores when you upgrade.
> and MISSING_SUBJECT
LOL, there was just a whole rush of no subject spam. ;-) I noticed that
because the greylist milter
Leon Kolchinsky wrote on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:32:36 +0300:
> Should I just remove them from my local.cf before upgrade?
Run a spamassassin --lint after upgrade (which you should do always,
anyway), this will bark about those scores and you can remove them. No
need to check each time if they stil
They no longer hit enough spam to be worth keeping, so they were removed.
Just remove the scores when you upgrade.
Loren
I've found that:
1) RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME and MISSING_SUBJECT now missing in both (3.1.x
and 3.2.x)
These scores were intact for my 3.1.7 installation when I configu
On Fri, February 2, 2007 17:56, Rick Vestal wrote:
>
>
> Martin Gill-2 wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>
> Mark is 100%. You have misformatted a rule somewhere along the line. Lint
> your rules and it'll turn up.
>
> I went thru the same thing at one point... drove me crazy.
>
[snip]
>
>
Yes, that was the
Martin Gill-2 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been watching my spam assassin rules for a while and I'm getting a
> bit confused with a couple of them.
>
> The MISSING_SUBJECT rule fires on every email, even though they actually
> have a "Subject:" header and spam assassin actually modifies the messag
Martin,
> The MISSING_SUBJECT rule fires on every email, even though they actually
> have a "Subject:" header
If I remember corrently, this effect can be produced by having
syntactically incorrect rules. Make sure to run 'spamassassin --lint'
before starting with modified rules!
Mark
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:48:18PM -, Martin Gill wrote:
> The MISSING_SUBJECT rule fires on every email, even though they actually
> have a "Subject:" header and spam assassin actually modifies the message
> to add it's SPAM tag.
> Anyone able to explain this to me please? Have I misunderstood
Jessica Perry Hekman writes:
> Hi all. I just started using spamassassin for the first time. It's
> marking everything as spam, because MISSING_SUBJECT is always matching,
> although the mail does have Subject: lines.
Btw, the last time the very same thing happened to me was because of an
unrelate
Well, that got me going in the right direction -- it sounded reasonable
so I started mucking with some messages that had come in, and what I
discovered is that all incoming messages were getting two copies of
their "From:" lines written, one with a preceding ">". I imagine SA
reaches that ">" a
hi Jessica --
I would suggest checking line endings -- that's a classic symptom
of \r\n being used where other parts of the mail delivery pipeline
are expecting \n.
--j.
Jessica Perry Hekman writes:
>Hi all. I just started using spamassassin for the first time. It's
>marking everything as spam
At 09:56 AM 5/26/2005, Shawn R. Beairsto wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm running SA 3.02 for a few weeks now together with amavisd-new-20030616
and it seems that MISSING_SUBJECT is firing on every mail even if there is
a Subject: header and it's not empty. Has anyone experienced this problem
or have
60 matches
Mail list logo
