ertainly artificial but not very intelligent :-)
It is also worth noting that Bayesian spam filtering is conceptually related to
what LLM "AI" tools do. They assemble texts word-by-word based on the
likelihood of each one being next based on the preceding series of $bignum
words. T
On 2025-05-09 at 13:10:21 UTC-0400 (Fri, 9 May 2025 13:10:21 -0400)
Mark London
is rumored to have said:
Hi - Our site has recently been getting lots of "cold emails".
You have my sympathy.
I've read according to a Google search, they aren't considered
"spam&
On 5/9/2025 13:10, Mark London wrote:
> Hi - Our site has recently been getting lots of "cold emails". I've read
> according to a Google search, they aren't considered "spam". And websites
> provide instructions and templates for people, on how to send
On 5/9/2025 13:10, Mark London wrote:
Hi - Our site has recently been getting lots of "cold emails". I've
read according to a Google search, they aren't considered "spam". And
websites provide instructions and templates for people, on how to send
cold emails. Or
Hi - Our site has recently been getting lots of "cold emails". I've read
according to a Google search, they aren't considered "spam". And
websites provide instructions and templates for people, on how to send
cold emails. Or there are web sites that prove a servi
, and said "editor"
address is valid not only for denninger.net, but also for a couple
of other domains that I run a web property for on behalf of
someone else.
If someone spams that "editor" user Spamassassin will use its
built-in rules -- but it does /not /honor the Bayesian cla
ules -- but it does /not /honor the Bayesian classifier
training that my account ("karl") has, and so if I put a spam that
got through in "Junk" while the classifier will do its job if someone
spams "k...@denninger.net" later with that same classified content
/it w
, and said "editor" address is
valid not only for denninger.net, but also for a couple of other
domains that I run a web property for on behalf of someone else.
If someone spams that "editor" user Spamassassin will use its built-in
rules -- but it does /not /honor the Bayesian cla
not only for denninger.net, but also for a couple of other domains that
I run a web property for on behalf of someone else.
If someone spams that "editor" user Spamassassin will use its built-in
rules -- but it does /not /honor the Bayesian classifier training that
my account (&qu
ched the gzipped spam in the previous mail)
gt; ce traitement à des fins de marketing.
[...]
I've received 2 of them with this DATAVENTURE GROUP text,
and I got
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DMARC_PASS,HTML_MESSAGE,
HTML_TAG_BALANCE_CENTER,SPF_HELO_PA
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Michel Arboi wrote:
> This piece of HTML triggers my rules, it shouldn't:
> Mar 7 02:37:14.474 [162580] dbg: uri: running uri_detail
> _HFD_URI_HOSTNAME_NOT_RFC_COMP:
> =3D"https://jbcorrie.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/JB-Corrie-and-Co-Ltd-=
Just t
This piece of HTML triggers my rules, it shouldn't:
Mobile: 01250 873989 https://www.jbcorrie.co.uk";>https://jbcorrie.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/JB-Corrie-and-Co-Ltd-=
Signal-Box-Road-Blaigowrie-Perthshire-PH10-6ER-01250-873989.jpg" width=3D"7=
Mar 7 02:37:14.474 [162580] dbg: uri: r
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025, Michel Arboi wrote:
I guess I'll have to blacklist some URI domains, but if anybody
finds a btter idea, I'll take it.
Bayes should handle that - especially if you don't actually speak
French...
Note the GDPR pseudo legal text. This is utter BS of course, as
this was not
I guess I'll have to blacklist some URI domains, but if anybody
finds a btter idea, I'll take it.
Note the GDPR pseudo legal text. This is utter BS of course, as
this was not sent to a professional address.
Ce message vous a été envoyé par DATAVENTURE GROUP dans le cadre de nos
activités de prosp
couple of years ago maybe?
They were correctly identified as spam but I do not remember if the
basic rules were very efficient. Maybe by the network tests or the
Bayesian filtering and/or CRM114 -- these filters are also fed by
my spamtrap addresses, this could be the reason for the detection.
I a
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
Hi,
Just received a, what seems to be, incorrectly used template for generating
mail bodies for bitcoin ripoffs.
Interesting to see all the variants and diacritics used. Maybe we can improve
some rules based on the variants.
There are already a bunc
Hi,
Just received a, what seems to be, incorrectly used template for
generating mail bodies for bitcoin ripoffs.
Interesting to see all the variants and diacritics used. Maybe we can
improve some rules based on the variants. I never received anything like
this, so sharing for the people inte
general.
Yes, Google is a net bad actor regarding spam. I personally treat them as a
default spam source, so that mail from any part of their open sewer must have
some affirmatively positive indicators to even be seen by SA. Obviously, I
don't believe that such a policy fits SA or even the
Hi Michel, you can find more about the ruleset channel at
https://mcgrail.com/template/kam.cf_channel
Take a look at the rules with KAM_ZW at the beginning of them.
Regards,
KAM
On 2/22/2025 1:24 PM, Michel Arboi wrote:
Where is it? I found a couple of blog articles on zero width characters
On 2/22/2025 4:06 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Would it be worth including codes that control text direction,
like "Trojan Source" - CVE-2021-42574 and CVE-2021-42694.
I generally only look at things being actively used or predictably used
in the wild. If you aren't seeing it in spamples, I
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025, Michel Arboi wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:31:37 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
You might want to look at the KAM ruleset
Interesting. KAM_REPLACE and KAM_OBFURL I suppose?
and look at the ZW rules as well. -KAM
Where is it? I found a couple of blog articles on ze
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:31:37 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> You might want to look at the KAM ruleset
Interesting. KAM_REPLACE and KAM_OBFURL I suppose?
> and look at the ZW rules as well. -KAM
Where is it? I found a couple of blog articles on zero width characters
used for obfuscation, b
You might want to look at the KAM ruleset and look at the ZW rules as
well. -KAM
On 2/21/2025 5:41 PM, Michel Arboi wrote:
I received this phishing spam yesterday. That was not the first of
this kind. (attached, w/o the image)
I thought about this and wrote this uri-bad-unicode.cf Insert it
I received this phishing spam yesterday. That was not the first of
this kind. (attached, w/o the image)
I thought about this and wrote this uri-bad-unicode.cf Insert it
in your local.cf or in /etc/spammassin, adjust the scores and restart
spamd. Comments welcome.
I am pretty sure there are
rumored to have said:
Hi Bill,
so do you have another idea?
Hi Stefan,
No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting point: do not send spam.
Make sure every recipient is an individual who has asked for your email
and wants it, to the greatest degree possible. If you cannot do that,
nothing anyone
have another idea?
Hi Stefan,
No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting point: do not send
spam. Make sure every recipient is an individual who has asked for
your email and wants it, to the greatest degree possible. If you
cannot do that, nothing anyone can tell you will fix your
On 16/02/2025 01:07, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100)
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn
is rumored to have said:
Hi Bill,
so do you have another idea?
Hi Stefan,
No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting point: do not send spam
Users
Betreff: Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL
Domain
On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100) wissen.online |
Stefan Mehlhorn is rumored to have said:
Hi Bill,
so do you have another idea?
Hi Stefan,
No, I do not, aside from the imp
Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL
Domain
On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100)
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn is rumored to have
said:
> Hi Bill,
>
> so do you have another idea?
Hi Stefan,
No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting poin
On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100)
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn
is rumored to have said:
Hi Bill,
so do you have another idea?
Hi Stefan,
No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting point: do not send spam.
Make sure every recipient is an individual
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:59:11 +0100,
Marc wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, if you look at ICANN's finances, they're retrenching because
> > the new TLDs have mostly been a failure. There's a huge one-time pot
> > of unexpected money from domain auctions, but they've promised to give
> > it away. Other
On 2025-02-13 12:49:31 -0500, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn said:
> >Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to lower
> >the high spam score of our emails?
> >
> >Or can you put us on one of your global whi
>
> Actually, if you look at ICANN's finances, they're retrenching because
> the new TLDs have mostly been a failure. There's a huge one-time pot
> of unexpected money from domain auctions, but they've promised to give
> it away. Other than that, it's been at best meh, and over 100 of the
> vanity
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 18:22:
Dear SpamAssassin Support Team,
https://matrix.spfbl.net/212.83.50.80
non-compliance domain.
i never will pay $2 for resolving this, same reason i dont use it in
spamassassin anymore
sorry that i did miss that you had spf pass fr
It appears that John Hardin said:
>> PS: If this leads to questions like "what exactly was the point of the
>> thousand new TLDs?"
>> you're not the only one asking.
>
>ICANN monetizing their product. Period.
Actually, if you look at ICANN's finances, they're retrenching because
the new TLDs hav
On 2025-02-13 at 12:49:31 UTC-0500 (13 Feb 2025 12:49:31 -0500)
John Levine
is rumored to have said:
[...]
I'm guessing that wissen.online is the same company as
wissenonline.de.
It's pretty clear from the 2 websites that they are entirely different.
"Wissen" is German for "knowledge" so I
e OPs own
mail server (mail.wissen.online) and it was clearly a normal
authenticated mail SUBMISSION, for which no sanely-run system would
reject his mail. SA would not look at that handoff in any way and
neither should any spam filter.
fun part is that abusic whitelist pbl ips, just in ca
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:22:44 +0100,
"wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn" wrote:
>
> How can we lower our spam score due to your negative rating of our top-level
> domain?
>
You may add your MX to https://www.dnswl.org/ and also add DMARC record like
"v=DMARC1; p=none; sp
On 13/02/2025 20:16, Richard Doyle wrote:
On 2/13/25 10:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 19:02:
Hi Benny, Hi Levine,
tnx! Wissen.online it also the name of our company ... so we need .online
and not wissenonline.de (ist another company)
stop
On 2/13/25 10:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 19:02:
>> Hi Benny, Hi Levine,
>>
>> tnx! Wissen.online it also the name of our company ... so we need .online
>> and not wissenonline.de (ist another company)
>>
>>> stop using send emails from pbl li
being flagged
as spam
by SpamAssassin.
Prove it.
Provide *evidence* in the form of explicit log entries or bounces
specifically citing SA AND a user affirming that they wanted the
involved email.
Scans by garbage websites (e.g. mail-tester.com) which lie about
SpamAssassin are not evidence
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn wrote:
But, the fact and problem is this :
PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999
and with website in our signatur on top: FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP=1.999
We probably need to resolve the overlap, but you're not going to avoid
getting *some* reputational d
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 19:02:
Hi Benny, Hi Levine,
tnx! Wissen.online it also the name of our company ... so we need
.online
and not wissenonline.de (ist another company)
stop using send emails from pbl listed ips eq dynamic ips
Yes we change it next days doing
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, John Levine wrote:
It appears that wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn said:
Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to lower
the high spam score of our emails?
Or can you put us on one of your global whitelists for trusted .online
domains?
I doubt
John Levine skrev den 2025-02-13 18:49:
I'm guessing that wissen.online is the same company as wissenonline.de.
That domain
should work fine.
de tld will fail on pbl listed ip aswell imho :=)
oh never mind
eff: Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL
Domain
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 18:22:
> Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to
> lower the high spam score of our emails?
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/90.186.6
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 18:22:
Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to
lower the high spam score of our emails?
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/90.186.69.50.html
avoid using online tld
X-Spam-Status No, score=1.375 tagged_above=-999
It appears that wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn said:
>Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to lower
>the high spam score of our emails?
>
>Or can you put us on one of your global whitelists for trusted .online
>domains?
I doubt there is such a thing.
Dear SpamAssassin Support Team,
We are a software company that provides an HR tool and we are experiencing
significant problems because our emails are constantly being flagged as spam
by SpamAssassin. This is a critical issue for our company as it affects our
communication with customers. We
hn Levine wrote:
>> Every day I get a bunch of spam from fake list brokers, invariably from
>> throwaway Gmail or Outlook
>> accounts.
>>
>> The text in them seems fairly consistent. Anyone have patterns to catch
>> them? They're quite annoying
>> s
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025, Marc wrote:
Every day I get a bunch of spam from fake list brokers, invariably from
throwaway Gmail or Outlook accounts.
What is helping me a lot is when the message has a softfail spf state and an
envelope with @outlook.com / @gmail.com I override the ~all and treat
John, Are you using the KAM ruleset? We have several list/data broker
rules and list them in the RBL quite regularly
Regards,
KAM
On 1/17/2025 1:58 PM, John Levine wrote:
Every day I get a bunch of spam from fake list brokers, invariably from
throwaway Gmail or Outlook
accounts.
The text
> Every day I get a bunch of spam from fake list brokers, invariably from
> throwaway Gmail or Outlook
> accounts.
What is helping me a lot is when the message has a softfail spf state and an
envelope with @outlook.com / @gmail.com I override the ~all and treat is as
-all
Maybe chec
Every day I get a bunch of spam from fake list brokers, invariably from
throwaway Gmail or Outlook
accounts.
The text in them seems fairly consistent. Anyone have patterns to catch them?
They're quite annoying
since they're hard to separate from the legit mail we get from giant mai
On 2025-01-13 at 03:12:25 UTC-0500 (Mon, 13 Jan 2025 02:12:25 -0600
(CST))
Dave Funk
is rumored to have said:
It's also possible for the messages to differ by things such as
network routing headers, better to feed it all to bayes and let it get
parsed/scored.
That's an important fact. One o
On 2025-01-13 at 01:51:17 UTC-0500 (Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:51:17 +0200)
Anders Gustafsson
is rumored to have said:
Hi!
When collecting spam I frequently see multiple copies of the same
message, but with different fake senders.
In this case, should I feed just one or all to Bayes?
All.
Also
Thanks!
--
Regards, Anders
>>> Dave Funk 2025-01-13 10:12 >>>
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, Anders Gustafsson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, Anders Gustafsson wrote:
Hi!
When collecting spam I frequently see multiple copies of the same message, but
with different fake senders.
In this case, should I feed just one or all to Bayes?
Yes, feed all copies of verfied spam to Bayes. As it is a weighted score per
Hi!
When collecting spam I frequently see multiple copies of the same message, but
with different fake senders.
In this case, should I feed just one or all to Bayes?
Also: Is there a point in feeding such spam that is already flagged by other
rules than Bayes and if so,
should I remove the
On 2024-12-22 at 10:44:39 UTC-0500 (Sun, 22 Dec 2024 10:44:39 -0500)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
> Hi,
> I have collected a bunch of "opt-out" junk at the bottom of emails similar
> to this one:
>
> Not your thing? Just reply 'no tnx' to opt-out :)
>
> Is it worthwhile to try and create a meta
Hi,
I have collected a bunch of "opt-out" junk at the bottom of emails similar
to this one:
Not your thing? Just reply 'no tnx' to opt-out :)
Is it worthwhile to try and create a meta using these, or perhaps even a
fuzzy rule that matches on 'no tnx' or "leave", etc, in combination with
opt-out a
x27;d like to share with you a patch which allows me to catch an
offering
SEO
spam which I've encountered in my INBOX quite a few missed for last
weeks.
Changes:
1. adds .xyz as suspicious zone because namecheap sells this domain
for
~€1;
That's not (in itself) enough for use t
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2024-12-13 at 06:53:59 UTC-0500 (Fri, 13 Dec 2024 12:53:59 +0100)
Kirill A. Korinsky
is rumored to have said:
Dear SA users,
I'd like to share with you a patch which allows me to catch an offering
SEO
spam which I've encountered in my I
On 2024-12-13 at 06:53:59 UTC-0500 (Fri, 13 Dec 2024 12:53:59 +0100)
Kirill A. Korinsky
is rumored to have said:
Dear SA users,
I'd like to share with you a patch which allows me to catch an
offering SEO
spam which I've encountered in my INBOX quite a few missed for last
weeks.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
Dear SA users,
I'd like to share with you a patch which allows me to catch an offering SEO
spam which I've encountered in my INBOX quite a few missed for last weeks.
Changes:
1. adds .xyz as suspicious zone because namecheap sells this
Dear SA users,
I'd like to share with you a patch which allows me to catch an offering SEO
spam which I've encountered in my INBOX quite a few missed for last weeks.
Changes:
1. adds .xyz as suspicious zone because namecheap sells this domain for ~€1;
2. extends PDS_SEO2 regex to catch
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, pgnd wrote:
I'm focused atm on using available rules -- out-of-the-box and KAM.
IF the answer is that the only way to cope with this is WITH Bayes, then
that's a learning too.
Well, I'm not sure out-of-the-box rules will help otherwise they'd already
be helping. :)
You
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 12:42:58PM -0500, pgnd wrote:
> , sneaking past my SA protections. Whether to call it snowshoe, I dunno :-/
> But my usually well fed Bayes isn't getting noticeably better with 'em.
> https://gist.github.com/pgnd/5ab934d921939f4c62a4c978a30b9e6f
Are you even runnin
my SA protections. Whether to call it snowshoe, I
dunno :-/ But my usually well fed Bayes isn't getting noticeably better
with 'em.
There's a modicum of badly-done personalization attempted in them. It's
usually laughably obvious spam to the eye.
I'd like to make i
ze:
On 12.11.24 13:05, natan wrote:
What methods do you have to fight with bounce spam? Last time i get
some spam
v320.pre:loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::VBounce
local.cf:welcomelist_bounce_relays fantomas.fantomas.sk
local.cf:score BOUNCE_MESSAGE 1
and of course training.
Return
On 12.11.24 13:05, natan wrote:
What methods do you have to fight with bounce spam? Last time i get
some spam
v320.pre:loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::VBounce
local.cf:welcomelist_bounce_relays fantomas.fantomas.sk
local.cf:score BOUNCE_MESSAGE 1
and of course training.
Return
Hi
What methods do you have to fight with bounce spam? Last time i get some
spam
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: bi...@domain.ltd
Received: from MX ([xx.xx.xx.5])
by dovecot3.local with LMTP
id aMFYFA8ALWcUjQAApYCB1g:P1
(envelope-from <>)
for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 18:59:43 +0100
Re
Hi,
An email travelling through multiple MTAs at different institutions
arrives with the earlier SpamAssassin X-Spam-... header fields intact,
including X-Spam-Status, but a later check adds X-Spam-... fields except
for X-Spam-Status.
The later institution say this is because only one X-Spam
On 2024-10-25 at 13:19:58 UTC-0400 (Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:19:58 +0100)
Ralph Corderoy
is rumored to have said:
> Hi,
>
> An email travelling through multiple MTAs at different institutions
> arrives with the earlier SpamAssassin X-Spam-... header fields intact,
> including X-Spa
ain and set up.
I had good trained DB from past V3 install, and it behaved really odd.
I trained it on new set of mails 3000 spam and 3000 ham (HAND
PICKED mail it was PAIN) and I cant get either BAYES_00 or BAYES_99 :)
I mean I get them occasionally, but not even close to what it was
in
> this whole range of 185.3.229.x is on my dns blacklist and everything on
> that is either rejected or marked. I can only suggest doing something
> similar ;)
>
Very helpful. Thanks for sharing.
> RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W=-2.5
> change to -0.1
That does seem to be a bit heavy-handed.
> and lastly i
Alex skrev den 2024-07-16 15:00:
Hi all,
Does anyone have any further ideas on how to block "approved for
funding" spam?
https://pastebin.com/2rKiAEpt
This one is another namecheap domain registered from Reykjavik. I can
create body rules, but the language is very much in line with
urther ideas on how to block "approved for funding"
> spam?
> https://pastebin.com/2rKiAEpt
>
>
> This one is another namecheap domain registered from Reykjavik. I can
> create body rules, but the language is very much in line with legitimate
> lending companies. I'
Hi all,
Does anyone have any further ideas on how to block "approved for funding"
spam?
https://pastebin.com/2rKiAEpt
This one is another namecheap domain registered from Reykjavik. I can
create body rules, but the language is very much in line with legitimate
lending companies. I
They do if you're offering mail service to a large number of users. They
login to a phished mailbox, send new phishingmails to that mailbox and
check the headers if they can see which rules are hit. Then they adapt
the phishingmail to get a lower score until they are below the spam
thre
On 27.05.24 23:10, Thomas Barth via users wrote:
for months I have been waiting for the type of SPAM I receive to be
captured by the DNS block lists. But nothing is happening. I have long
since fed Spamassassin with these SPAMs. What else can I do? I have
even activated HOSTKARMA-black/brown
> for months I have been waiting for the type of SPAM I receive to be
> captured by the DNS block lists. But nothing is happening. I have long
> since fed Spamassassin with these SPAMs. What else can I do?
put your spam score lower? I don't think you will get many false positives
oh dear, when do he stop ?
Original besked
Emne: Re: Rule: "1.0 R_DCD 90% of .com. is spam"
Dato: 2024-05-10 20:17
Afsender: "Reindl Harald (gmail)"
Modtager: Benny Pedersen
Am 10.05.24 um 20:14 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2
rule comes from, DCD may actually mean
dot-com-dot, and perhaps it is true that they are mostly spam.
where is the rule stored? what file?
On May 10, 2024, 17:18, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
I only have stock and KAM, and it is definitely not a custom rule of
mine.
grep -r '\.com./'
On 2024-05-10 at 11:08:53 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 15:08:53 +)
Rupert Gallagher
is rumored to have said:
> R_DCD
That string does not occur anywhere in the SpamAssassin distribution, neither
in the code nor in the rules, *including* the rules that are not currently
performing well enough
, and perhaps it is true that they are mostly spam.
where is the rule stored? what file?
On May 10, 2024, 17:18, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
I only have stock and KAM, and it is definitely not a custom rule of mine.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I
mostly spam.
Original Message
On May 10, 2024, 17:18, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> I only have stock and KAM, and it is definitely not a custom rule of mine.
>
> Original Message
> On May 10, 2024, 17:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> On 1
I only have stock and KAM, and it is definitely not a custom rule of mine.
Original Message
On May 10, 2024, 17:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 10.05.24 15:08, Rupert Gallagher wrote: >My local evidence does not
> support the general claim that 90% of .com is s
On 10.05.24 15:08, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
My local evidence does not support the general claim that 90% of .com is spam.
I just received a mail from informat...@info.email.ikea.com marked as spam,
with positive R_DCD. The rule did not trigger on mail from other .com addresses.
I do not know
My local evidence does not support the general claim that 90% of .com is spam.
I just received a mail from informat...@info.email.ikea.com marked as spam,
with positive R_DCD. The rule did not trigger on mail from other .com addresses.
I do not know what R_DCD means, and search indexes do not
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 08:22:09PM +0200, tba...@txbweb.de wrote:
> when a send a test spam message to my server it recognizes it as spam and
> puts it into /var/lib/amavis/virusmails as a gz file. In this file I can
> find the complete X-Spam-Header, etc:
>
> But this header is
System (fresh installation): Debian 12,5, Postfix, Dovecot, Amavis
(Clamav, Spamassassin)
Hello,
when a send a test spam message to my server it recognizes it as spam
and puts it into /var/lib/amavis/virusmails as a gz file. In this file I
can find the complete X-Spam-Header, etc:
X
Pierluigi Frullani skrev den 2024-04-18 20:23:
It was simscan, that is compiled with enable-drop.
with is fine
The problem was a bad expression in blacklist_from section in local.cf
[1]
this is spam, not virus
Sorry for the noise.
if you like to reject all / drop all, why not pants
Pierluigi Frullani skrev den 2024-04-18 19:52:
So could it be simscan ?
super you wake up :)
configure it to pass spam, and reject virus
simscan is very old, btw
Pierluigi Frullani skrev den 2024-04-18 19:44:
I'm really fighting with spamassasin as one ( legit ) mail get spam
dropped with a 99.90 value, also if I have put, in local.cf [1] a
required hit of 100.
why is 100 required score ?
spamassassin does only tag, it does not drop
The ma
t.net>> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 18.04.24 um 19:44 schrieb Pierluigi Frullani:
> > > Hello all,
> > > I'm really fighting with spamassasin as one ( legit ) mail get
> > spam
> > > dropped with a 99.90 value,
> I'm really fighting with spamassasin as one ( legit ) mail get spam
> > dropped with a 99.90 value, also if I have put, in local.cf
> > <http://local.cf> a required hit of 100.
> > The mail is sent from a legit gmail account ( my daughter ) to me and
> > contains
Hello all,
I'm really fighting with spamassasin as one ( legit ) mail get spam
dropped with a 99.90 value, also if I have put, in local.cf a required hit
of 100.
The mail is sent from a legit gmail account ( my daughter ) to me and
contains some amazon links for stuff to buy.
I have dis
RA_FLAGS="-e onholyground.com -u defang -m -r 15 -i 127.0.0.1 -g sa-milt
>>> -- --max-size=512
>>> --dest=sa0.int.ohgnetworks.com,sa1.int.ohgnetworks.com —randomize"
>>
Found it, even with the -m, spamass-milter only replaces a hardcoded set of
X-Spam-* headers
1 - 100 of 1071 matches
Mail list logo
