On 17/02/2025 03:23, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2025-02-16 at 04:41:25 UTC-0500 (Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:41:25 +1000)
Noel Butler
is rumored to have said:
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 rumore
On 2025-02-16 at 04:41:25 UTC-0500 (Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:41:25 +1000)
Noel Butler
is rumored to have said:
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
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.
Mak
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
An: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our
TDL
Domain
On 2025-02-13 at 13:25:44 UTC-0500 (Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:25:44 +0100)
Benny
Pedersen is rumored to have said:
https://matrix.spfbl.net/90.186.69.50
move avay from this ip
What *ev
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
On 2025-02-13 at 13:25:44 UTC-0500 (Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:25:44 +0100)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
https://matrix.spfbl.net/90.186.69.50
move avay from this ip
What *evidence* do you have for the OP using that IP to connect to hosts
other than his own mailserver?
As far as I can
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
igurations or adjustments we can make to
lower
the high spam score of our emails?
Compose your email to be less spam-like.
Using plain text for email helps. If you must use HTML, use the simplest
possible HTML, make it perfectly formally correct, and don't reference
any remote resources (
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.
use the TDL https://wissen.online
How can we lower our spam score due to your negative rating of our top-level
domain?
FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.499,
FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP=1.999,
PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
Are there any specific configurations
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Reindl Harald kirjoitti 21.1.2017 22:33:
> Am 21.01.2017 um 21:21 schrieb Jari Fredriksson:
>> Emin Akbulut kirjoitti 10.1.2017 9:48:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
>>> I've also checked the raw mes
Emin Akbulut kirjoitti 10.1.2017 9:48:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
> I've also checked the raw message at http://spamcheck.postmarkapp.com/
> and score was very low either.
>
> I've trained the SA and it worked for a while but now it's useless.
Hi all
I've disabled autolearn for a week and trained SA with tons of spams.
I still receive same spam messages with "random" scores. I've attached the
zip
file that contains same template with different sender addresses. Scores
seem
randomly to me; from 0 to 2.6, etc. Sample spam messages attache
On 10.01.17 14:13, RW wrote:
>The pastebin example was auto-learned as ham, it may be hard to
>counter this with manual training.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:29:51 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
depends... I found out proper trainning can fix quite fast
On 11.01.17 14:49, RW wrote:
Since ma
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:29:51 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> On 10.01.17 10:48, Emin Akbulut wrote:
> >> >Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
> [deleted]
> >> >Message source:
> >> >http://pastebin.com/nnN0jGw8
>
> >On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:43:40 +0100 Matus U
On 10.01.17 10:48, Emin Akbulut wrote:
>Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
[deleted]
>Message source:
>http://pastebin.com/nnN0jGw8
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:43:40 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
clear case of mistrained BAYES causing message being marked as ham.
yo
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Emin Akbulut wrote:
I've trained the SA and it worked for a while but now it's useless.
How can I prevent those spams? They look like poems
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I am a tender and passionate girl-student.
I assure satisfaction and all the pleasures to my lover!
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:43:40 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 10.01.17 10:48, Emin Akbulut wrote:
> >Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
>
> why should it? They seem ham to is.
>
> >I've also checked the raw message at
> >http://spamcheck.postmarkapp.com/ and sc
Am 2017-01-10 08:48, schrieb Emin Akbulut:
Hi all,
Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
I've also checked the raw message at http://spamcheck.postmarkapp.com/
and score was very low either.
I've trained the SA and it worked for a while but now it's useless.
How can I p
On 10.01.17 10:48, Emin Akbulut wrote:
Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
why should it? They seem ham to is.
I've also checked the raw message at http://spamcheck.postmarkapp.com/
and score was very low either.
I've trained the SA and it worked for a while but now
Hi all,
Recently we receive spam messages and SA cannot block them.
I've also checked the raw message at http://spamcheck.postmarkapp.com/
and score was very low either.
I've trained the SA and it worked for a while but now it's useless.
How can I prevent those spams? They look like poems
* *
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 02:50:11 +0200
Mark Martinec wrote:
> >> >> On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
> >> >>> Michael Williamson wrote:
> >> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam
> >> scores fo
>> On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
>>> Michael Williamson wrote:
It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam
scores for the same email.
In particular, I have noticed that points are omitted for
R
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:17:12 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> On 4/22/2015 11:19 PM, Thom Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:23:22 -0400
> > "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> >
> >> Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are
> >> started? Regards,
> >> KAM
> > No. spamd is
On 4/22/2015 11:19 PM, Thom Miller wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:23:22 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are
started? Regards,
KAM
No. spamd is started after the network is up and running.
According to
https://spamassassin.apache.org/
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:23:22 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are
> started? Regards,
> KAM
No. spamd is started after the network is up and running.
According to
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.h
Are you starting spamd before your networking and local dns are started?
Regards,
KAM
On April 22, 2015 8:44:59 PM EDT, Thom Miller wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
>Michael Williamson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have another question.
>>
>> It appears to me that spamassassin can produc
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:16:40 -0700
Michael Williamson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have another question.
>
> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam scores
> for the same email.
> In particular, I have noticed that points are omitted for
> RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS (Spamhaus blacklist) somet
On 4/18/15, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Saturday 18 April 2015 at 17:16:40 (EU time), Michael Williamson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have another question.
>>
>> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam scores
>> for the same email.
>
> Do you mean *exactly* the same email - totally
On Saturday 18 April 2015 at 17:16:40 (EU time), Michael Williamson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have another question.
>
> It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam scores
> for the same email.
Do you mean *exactly* the same email - totally identical headers and body,
with no change
Hi,
I have another question.
It appears to me that spamassassin can produce different spam scores
for the same email.
In particular, I have noticed that points are omitted for
RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS (Spamhaus blacklist) sometimes. Why?
Is the difference due to a difference in how spamassassin is invoked
On Sunday 28 September 2014 at 07:47:07 (EU time), Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:07:31 +0200,
> Antony Stone wrote:
>
> motty> Received: from maria.fqdn.com ([127.0.0.1])
>
> Antony> That won't be helping - it means you're not basing any tests on
> Antony> the sending server. c
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:07:31 +0200,
Antony Stone wrote:
motty> Received: from maria.fqdn.com ([127.0.0.1])
Antony> That won't be helping - it means you're not basing any tests on
Antony> the sending server. can you run SA on your inbound MX instead
Antony> of relaying locally first?
Is this ri
Am 26.09.2014 um 18:01 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> we have a domain with a subdomain in nearly every country on this planet and
>> so the sources of mail are very
>> different
>
> Ooo. Have you considered participating in masschecks?
sorry, technical
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
we have a domain with a subdomain in nearly every country on this planet
and so the sources of mail are very different
Ooo. Have you considered participating in masschecks?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jha
>>>>
>>>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com <http://fqdn.com/>
>>>> X-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>> X-Spam-Score: 4.712
>>>> X-Spam-Level:
>>>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.712 tagged_above=-999 required=6.1
>>>>
On 9/26/2014 11:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.09.2014 um 17:03 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
On 9/26/2014 10:53 AM, motty cruz wrote:
Hello,
I am getting tons of spam with very low score:
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com <http://fqdn.com/>
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.712
X-Spam
Am 26.09.2014 um 17:03 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
> On 9/26/2014 10:53 AM, motty cruz wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am getting tons of spam with very low score:
>>
>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com <http://fqdn.com/>
>> X-Spam-Flag: NO
>> X-Spam-Score:
On Friday 26 September 2014 at 16:53:41 (EU time), motty cruz wrote:
> Hello,
> I am getting tons of spam with very low score:
>
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Spam-Score: 4.712
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.712 tagged
On 9/26/2014 10:53 AM, motty cruz wrote:
Hello,
I am getting tons of spam with very low score:
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com <http://fqdn.com/>
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.712
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.712 tagged_above=-999 required=6.1
test
Hello,
I am getting tons of spam with very low score:
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.712
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.712 tagged_above=-999 required=6.1
tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_99=4.5, BAYES_999=0.2,
HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE
On 8/12/2014 10:42 AM, matth wrote:
Oh, right, thanks. It is amavis. I did not realise it was triggering SA.
Thanks for the pointer.
Doing spam scanning with Amavis can be useful. It gives you the ability
to reject high-scoring spam, but you lose some of the per-user
customizations.
If you
Oh, right, thanks. It is amavis. I did not realise it was triggering SA.
Thanks for the pointer.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Spam-score-in-headers-does-not-match-the-Content-analysis-report-tp110896p110906.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin
On 8/12/2014 10:05 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers
On 8/12/2014 6:31 AM, matth wrote:
Hello All,
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the ema
Hello All,
Please have a look at the email below: in the content analysis report (in
the body) the spam score appears as 5.1 points. The email is correctly
identified as spam, the subject line changed to include "*SPAM*".
However, in the email headers the score appears as 0.00
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 11:34 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > In other words is there something like a gaussian distribution
> > graphic visualisation?
>
> That would be different on every server depending on what type of spam
> and ham you see and which rule sets you are running. I graphed mine ou
On 6/9/2014 11:34 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 6/9/2014 3:47 AM, Ben Stover wrote:
As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts
the value into the email header.
What is the maximum range of the score?
-10,,+10
or other?
There are no limits on the score. The
On 6/9/2014 3:47 AM, Ben Stover wrote:
As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts the value
into the email header.
What is the maximum range of the score?
-10,,+10
or other?
There are no limits on the score. The higher the score, the more likely
the email
On Monday 09 June 2014 at 09:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 09.06.14 09:47, Ben Stover wrote:
> >As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts the
> > value into the email header.
> >
> >What is the maximum range of the score?
> >
&
On 09.06.14 09:47, Ben Stover wrote:
As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts the
value into the email header.
What is the maximum range of the score?
-10,,+10
I don't think it has limits. Maybe just limist for integer.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantoma
As far as I found out SpamAssassin calculates the spam score and puts the value
into the email header.
What is the maximum range of the score?
-10,,+10
or other?
Is there a statistic for an average email account how much emails get which
score?
In other words is there something like a
Hello Benny,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 6:59:39 PM, you wrote:
BP> there is plenty of other rules that can adjust
BP> the complete scores up or down
Very few have such a high score, that's my point.
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgpcRjCSfz4Wq
Den 2012-06-13 18:20, Niamh Holding skrev:
Hello Benny,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 5:12:16 PM, you wrote:
BP> true if it only hits spam and not ham
That's the point this high scoring rule hits ham and causes false
positives.
there is just one rule in spamassassin ?, your clams is currect if i
Hello Benny,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 5:12:16 PM, you wrote:
BP> true if it only hits spam and not ham
That's the point this high scoring rule hits ham and causes false
positives.
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgppjprdU8CWc.pgp
Description: P
Den 2012-06-13 08:24, Axb skrev:
Not officially, but if the SOUGHT creator is reading, he may get back
to you offlist.
who have set him read only here ?
Den 2012-06-13 07:53, Niamh Holding skrev:
Hello Benny,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 1:36:37 AM, you wrote:
BP> nope sought rules just needs more ham
Unless a rule is almost perfect then for it to apply 80% of the
default spam identification score is probably excessive.
true if it only hits spa
On 06/13/2012 08:16 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Axb,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 7:07:59 AM, you wrote:
A> Nobody stops you from changing the SOUGHT rules' scores if you think
A> they're scored too high.
I'm keeping an eye on the false positives caused by them to make that
call.
Is there
Hello Axb,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 7:07:59 AM, you wrote:
A> Nobody stops you from changing the SOUGHT rules' scores if you think
A> they're scored too high.
I'm keeping an eye on the false positives caused by them to make that
call.
Is there anywhere we can send misscored ham to help impro
On 06/13/2012 07:53 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Benny,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 1:36:37 AM, you wrote:
BP> nope sought rules just needs more ham
Unless a rule is almost perfect then for it to apply 80% of the
default spam identification score is probably excessive.
Nobody stops you fr
Hello Benny,
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 1:36:37 AM, you wrote:
BP> nope sought rules just needs more ham
Unless a rule is almost perfect then for it to apply 80% of the
default spam identification score is probably excessive.
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@full
Den 2012-06-12 09:02, Niamh Holding skrev:
Though I must admit I'm finding the score of 4 a bit high and it's
causing misclassification of the occasional ham.
nope sought rules just needs more ham
Hello Christopher,
Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 5:26:43 PM, you wrote:
CT> The scoring rule is 4.0 JM_SOUGHT_3, which is one of the "sought
CT> channel" rules distributed (and regularly updated) by the
CT> sought.rules.yerp.org channel in SpamAssassin [1].
Though I must admit I'm finding the score of
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:46:27PM -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Those rules don't exist in the current sought rule set. You *are*
> keeping the sought rules updated, right?
>
> What is the date of your 20_sought.cf file?
My file dated from a copy made Monday morning off our spam check server.
I
On 6/5/2012 12:33 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 06/05/2012 06:26 PM, Christopher Tiwald wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:39:29AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>> A) These are just sub rules for use in a meta. As a specialist in
>>> meta rules, just because you hit a sub rule doesn't matter. What
>>>
On 06/05/2012 06:26 PM, Christopher Tiwald wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:39:29AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
A) These are just sub rules for use in a meta. As a specialist in
meta rules, just because you hit a sub rule doesn't matter. What
matters is if it triggers a scoring rule. Does
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:39:29AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> A) These are just sub rules for use in a meta. As a specialist in
> meta rules, just because you hit a sub rule doesn't matter. What
> matters is if it triggers a scoring rule. Does it?
>
> B) I don't recognize those rules or k
Den 2012-06-05 17:31, Brett Schenker skrev:
Has anyone else tackled the problem and have a solution? Thanks for
any help!
souch rules needs more ham from that editor to compensate for keep away
from hitting this as a spam sign
On 6/5/2012 11:31 AM, Brett Schenker wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm new to the list and so glad it exists.
We're running into an issue with CKEditor,
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10890407/ckeditors-html-artifacts-trigger-spamassassin-can-you-turn-ckeditors-html-mod
and the following rules,
b
Hey everyone, I'm new to the list and so glad it exists.
We're running into an issue with CKEditor,
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10890407/ckeditors-html-artifacts-trigger-spamassassin-can-you-turn-ckeditors-html-modand
the following rules,
body __SEEK_A5MEIH / cellspacing=\"0\"><\/
Which level that can give such a result (the score)? Thanx.
Regards,
Mario
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a mail server setup on an AWS instance.
>
> When I am sending mails via this setup to a test spamassassin setup that
> acts as an email receiver serv
Den 2012-02-10 14:43, Sharma, Ashish skrev:
My Spamassassin version : 3.3.1
Following are sample message headers:
remove sare rules set, its depricated
Den 2012-02-10 09:33, Sharma, Ashish skrev:
[FROM_LOCAL_HEX=0.331, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=3.399, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
autolearn=no
Is there anything else you need? I didn't get your last question
completely.
its local problem w
Den 2012-02-10 08:15, Sharma, Ashish skrev:
Can you please explain now?
Received: from G9W0367G.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.216.193.231) by
G5W2206G.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.228.43.185) with Microsoft SMTP
Server
(TLS) id 14.1.289.1; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:15:47 +
Received: from G9W072
My Spamassassin version : 3.3.1
Following are sample message headers:
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: clean-quarantine
X-Envelope-From:
X-Envelope-To: <4564eji78...@load.cpgtest.ostinet.net>
X-Envelope-To-Blocked:
X-Quarantine-ID:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 6.423
On 02/10/2012 09:33 AM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
Following is the spam score received for cloudemail5.cpgtest.ostinet.net
(184.72.247.145) email sending setup on one of my Spamassassin email receiving
setup:
[FROM_LOCAL_HEX=0.331, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP
Following is the spam score received for cloudemail5.cpgtest.ostinet.net
(184.72.247.145) email sending setup on one of my Spamassassin email receiving
setup:
[FROM_LOCAL_HEX=0.331, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=3.399, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
On 02/10/2012 02:16 AM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
> The cluster with which I am facing problem is different one.
>
> The node for which I am getting high spam score has the following details:
>
> cloudemail5.cpgtest.ostinet.net (184.72.247.145)
No other Received lines?
--
Joe Sniderman
The cluster with which I am facing problem is different one.
The node for which I am getting high spam score has the following details:
cloudemail5.cpgtest.ostinet.net (184.72.247.145)
Can you please explain now?
Thanks
Ashish
-Original Message-
From: Joe Sniderman
The cluster with which I am facing problem is different one.
The node for which I am getting high spam score has the following details:
cloudemail5.cpgtest.ostinet.net (184.72.247.145)
Can you please explain now?
Thanks
Ashish
-Original Message-
From: Michael Scheidell
On 02/08/2012 12:22 PM, Joe Sniderman typed hurriedly:
> IOW, 196.254.0.0/16 no longer matches as of 3.3
Well, I meant to type 169.254.0.0/16... but then.. obvious typo is obvious.
--
Joe Sniderman
On 02/08/2012 08:57 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 2/8/12 6:41 AM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a mail server setup on an AWS instance.
>>
>> When I am sending mails via this setup to a test spamassassin setup
>> that acts as an email receiver server, I am getting high spam scores
>
On 2/8/12 6:41 AM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
Hi,
I have a mail server setup on an AWS instance.
When I am sending mails via this setup to a test spamassassin setup that acts
as an email receiver server, I am getting high spam scores as follows:
[FROM_LOCAL_HEX=0.331, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HT
Hi,
I have a mail server setup on an AWS instance.
When I am sending mails via this setup to a test spamassassin setup that acts
as an email receiver server, I am getting high spam scores as follows:
[FROM_LOCAL_HEX=0.331, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=3.399, T
1 - 100 of 227 matches
Mail list logo
