On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 15:15 +0200, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y
Simon, it seems you have a false understanding of Bayes and how it
works. Quoting parts of the mail body from that paste:
> You should send t
On 2013-07-24 15:59, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200
> Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
>> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [1] [3]
>
> It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES_00, aside from the
> obfuscated words
On 24.07.13 13:00, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure
and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little flummoxed. Do any
of you have any ideas?
_# sa-learn --f
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [3]
It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES_00, aside from the
obfuscated words it's not very spammy.
What you originally said was:
gt; http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/ [1] [2] If it wasn't previously getting
> any BAYES result then presumably it was short-circuiting on something.
> Perhaps the previous mail was a real GTUBE mail short-circuiting on GTUBE -
> although I'm not sure why anyone would want t
JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:40:
#shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
or change it to on, not adding ham score here
I ran my message through spamc []see pastebin below), but this still
won't explain why this hits bayes 00 :(
the error is to not add -100 on shortcircuit, it is just save circles
not h
sassin.apache.org/gtube/ [2]
> >
> > If it wasn't previously getting any BAYES result then presumably it
> > was short-circuiting on something. Perhaps the previous mail was a
> > real GTUBE mail short-circuiting on GTUBE - although I'm not sure
> > why anyone
On 2013-07-24 14:19, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Simon Loewenthal skrev den 2013-07-24 13:00:
>
>> Little email and result of spamc can be found here
>> http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1] [1]
>
> -100 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a
> shortcircuited rule
> [score: 0.0008]
> -1.9 BA
JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:04:
This is a GTUBE test email I'm using to test if rules I wrote fired.
I just don't know why this started hitting bayes zero all of a
sudden.
This shortcircuits because the server is configured to do so, and I
could turn this off.
what is learned so ?
Simon Loewenthal skrev den 2013-07-24 13:00:
Little email and result of spamc can be found here
http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1]
-100 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a
shortcircuited rule
[score: 0.0008]
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Baye
TUBE - although I'm not sure why
> anyone would want to do that.
This is a GTUBE test email I'm using to test if rules I wrote fired. I
just don't know why this started hitting bayes zero all of a sudden.
This shortcircuits because the server is configured to do so, and I
could t
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:59 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
> and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good
> measure and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little
> flummoxed. Do any
Hi,
Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure
and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little flummoxed. Do any
of you have any ideas?
Little email and result of spamc can be found here
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
Here is a site that gives you your IP address and lets you check it against
DNSBLs:
http://cqcounter.com/rbl_check/
Just as a word of warning, that site is still checking
blacklist.spambag.org, wh
On Saturday 31 October 2009, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>> Here is a site that gives you your IP address and lets you check it
>> against DNSBLs:
>>
>> http://cqcounter.com/rbl_check/
>
>Just as a word of warning, that site is still checking
>blackl
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> Here is a site that gives you your IP address and lets you check it against
> DNSBLs:
>
> http://cqcounter.com/rbl_check/
Just as a word of warning, that site is still checking
blacklist.spambag.org, which has been offline since 2007 and now
Hi,
On Fri, 30.10.2009 at 15:09:20 -0700, djjmj wrote:
> Thank you for your interest and support. I will keep pushing our ISP to use
> this forum for a resolution.
please learn about how email works. Really.
You only sent an obfuscated log about an email conversation with your
ISP, but not th
On Saturday 31 October 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
>> one small clarification, which didnt come to me until after I went to
>> IPchicken. Our ISP is NOT our EmailSP
>
>That is a pretty critical part of the equation. Having problems with an
>ESP changes many of the as
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
one small clarification, which didnt come to me until after I went to
IPchicken. Our ISP is NOT our EmailSP
That is a pretty critical part of the equation. Having problems with an
ESP changes many of the assumptions that we make if you say you're having
prob
one small clarification, which didnt come to me until after I went to
IPchicken. Our ISP is NOT our EmailSP We are using authenticaion on port 25.
Tried 587, not configured on ESP side.
John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
>
>> John Hardin wrote:
>>>
>> Dana may not have th
Thanks for the info Kris and John. I have something to work with the ISP now
and somethings I can try on the client. BTW I agree with you on the Outlook
existing comment. I have asked our ISP your questions throught our support
post with them. We'll see what their response is.
Kris Deugau wrote
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Dana may not have that information - saying "which our ISP uses" suggests
SA is not under their control.
Correct SA is not under our control, just trying to find an answer to our
problem.
Dana:
Does your ISP bounce the messages back
djjmj wrote:
We have been discussing with them since Sept 17th with no fixes yet. Once
they found out
Windows Mail Client didn't have an issue they have been unwilling to help.
"Not a server side problem, your clients are the problem"
Then tell them you're walking as soon as you find another
On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:13 PM, djjmj wrote:
Outlook 2007 for most of the clients under our domain are now having
outgoing
emails blocked by Spam Assassin,
No they aren't. First, SpamAssassin doesn't block mail, ever. Second,
SpamAssassin doesn't generally scan outbound mail. Your ISP has
ma
John,
Thank you for your interest and support. I will keep pushing our ISP to use
this forum for a resolution.
John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
>
>>> Try to ask your ISP's tech support to send you debugging info on some
>>> of your emails.
>>
>> 11:53:31 [24.181.159
eir customers.
> I requested this information from the ISP last week. There response was
> "our or your" domain are not black listed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your
> ?
>
>>> --- Original message ---
>>> Subject: outlook 2007 "Test" email
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, djjmj wrote:
Try to ask your ISP's tech support to send you debugging info on some
of your emails.
11:53:31 [24.181.159.14][19038377] Authenticated as .org
11:53:31 [24.181.159.14][19038377] cmd: MAIL FROM:
11:53:31 [24.181.159.14][19038377] rsp: 250 OK Sender ok
11:
Toni Mueller-17 wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 30.10.2009 at 14:13:45 -0700, djjmj wrote:
>> Outlook 2007 for most of the clients under our domain are now having
>> outgoing
>> emails blocked by Spam Assassin, which our ISP uses. This started in
>> late
>> September (Outlook/MS update??). Sim
nternet gateway's public IP address is listed. Your
ISP may be doing something as simple as treating you as J. Random User
From The Internet rather than as one of their customers.
--- Original message ---
Subject: outlook 2007 "Test" email scores 30+
Outlook 2007 for m
Hi,
On Fri, 30.10.2009 at 14:13:45 -0700, djjmj wrote:
> Outlook 2007 for most of the clients under our domain are now having outgoing
> emails blocked by Spam Assassin, which our ISP uses. This started in late
> September (Outlook/MS update??). Simple Text emails with "hello" or "test"
> get s
Outlook 2007 for most of the clients under our domain are now having outgoing
emails blocked by Spam Assassin, which our ISP uses. This started in late
September (Outlook/MS update??). Simple Text emails with "hello" or "test"
get scored over 30. If I switch the users over to "windows mail" vs.
"
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:02 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: test email
>
> hmm seems to , no traffic last night, very odd...
>
> ahh well sorry for the intrusion everyone..
-BEGIN
me pointer hermes.apache.org.
Pierre Thomson
BIC
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:02 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: test email
hmm seems to , no traffic last night, very odd...
ahh well sorry for the intrusio
Thomson
BIC
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:02 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: test email
hmm seems to , no traffic last night, very odd...
ahh well sorry for the intrusion everyone..
hmm seems to , no traffic last night, very odd...
ahh well sorry for the intrusion everyone..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Martin Hepworth wrote:
Is this list still working??
or is it just me ??
**
Is this list still working??
or is it just me ??
--
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the
37 matches
Mail list logo
