Wild hair

I've been running SpamAssassin for longer than seems realistic (2.28 with 1998 Red Hat Hurricane?). Anyway I have started moving everything mail to yet a new machine, Ubunto LTS 24.04.01. That only supports SA 4.0.0. I've been contemplating the pain of sideloading 4.0.1 into the system. Then I n

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

On 20201017 10:58:13, RW wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:18:16 -0400 Bill Cole wrote: On 16 Oct 2020, at 21:06, Noel Butler wrote: perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4 and versions <4 should have the original rules. The rule name change is an artifact of how the rule

Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights

On 20201120 18:35:35, noel.but...@ausics.net wrote: On 2020-11-21 04:59, Jakob Curdes wrote: To all: please also rememember that this list is international and not every corner of the world is interested in the way the current conflicts in the U.S. are handled. well said! Or, in other wor

Re: Has anyone heard of these people?

On 20210317 20:26:32, Benny Pedersen wrote: On 2021-03-18 04:17, Bill Cole wrote: On 17 Mar 2021, at 22:35, Loren Wilton wrote: Has anyone come across 102.122.2O7.net before? Ever heard of Adobe? They do web-bugs in addition to graphics software. +1 chrome://settings/content/siteDetails?

Re: Has anyone heard of these people?

On 20210317 22:55:26, Benny Pedersen wrote: On 2021-03-18 04:47, Bill Cole wrote: On 17 Mar 2021, at 23:39, jdow wrote: 2(oO0)7.net all are registered to the same people. Note that this is just 2 domains registrations: 2o7.net and 2O7.net are the same thing. spamassassin see it as X

Re: Are X-MC-xxx headers legit?

That is well known. Now, who is using the X-MC-xxx header set and are they legitimate? {^_^} On 20210328 21:20:17, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Loren, See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 but basically for email think of X- as local headers, 100% allowed,

Re: Are X-MC-xxx headers legit?

Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail> - 703.798.0171 On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:26 AM jdow <mailto:j...@earthlink.net>> wrote: That is well known. Now, who is using th

Re: "Please send us a quote..."?

lso figure it's nearly free to email everybody in a loosely, often very loosely, defined geographic area. A microscopic number of such emails hit a marketdroid or a CEOdroid whose brain misfires at the thought of a new contract. Then the scam is on. This is a question I keep asking myself. I h

LONGLN_LOW_CONTRAST

Has anybody else noticed this rule is hitting rather often since Thunderbird has changed to a gray fond rather than black font for their default? {o.o}

Re: Enabling USER_IN_BLOCKLIST

Go find the rule in the rule sets. In my old SL7 install I get a bundle more than makes sense with a simple  "sudo grep -r USER_IN BLACKLIST /var/lib/spamassassin". People with more prejudices than good sense decided "BLACK" in a rule name is R*A*C*I*S*T so they broke everything renaming it "BL

Re: Enabling USER_IN_BLOCKLIST

Go find the rule in the rule sets. In my old SL7 install I get a bundle more than makes sense with a simple  "sudo grep -r USER_IN BLACKLIST /var/lib/spamassassin". People with more prejudices than good sense decided "BLACK" in a rule name is R*A*C*I*S*T so they broke everything renaming it "BL

Re: Enabling USER_IN_BLOCKLIST

place. Jdow, don't change stuff directly in /var/lib/spamassassin and don't recommend others to do so. Nothing is broken because of that renaming, except your ego. I'm sorry you read it that way. My intent was to provide documentation that could lead to understanding what was go

Re: Enabling USER_IN_BLOCKLIST

And "gabor.sz...@gmail.com" can stuff his mail setup where the sun doesn't shine. {^_^} On 20221018 16:23:26, jdow wrote: On 20221018 07:29:49, Laurent S. wrote: On 3.4.X, adding those rules should be enough: score URI_HOST_IN_BLOCKLIST

Re: Facepalm

On 20221124 00:42:22, Marc wrote: I accidentally forwarded one (or more) messages to the SpamAssassin mailing list which I meant to forward to SpamCop. High-latency remote control, address prefix collision, and lack of sleep are contributing factors. I will update address books to reduce likeli

Re: Sudden surge in spam appearing to come from my email address

On 20230715 20:20:03, Thomas Cameron wrote: On 7/14/23 23:59, Loren Wilton wrote: I am suddenly getting hammered by a BUNCH of spam that appears to be from me. It scores low, and even though I keep feeding it to Bayes, it's still not hitting the threshold to be marked as spam. When I check th

Re: dkim-test valid but spamassassin scores DKIM_INVALID

On 20231024 23:46:18, Niels Kobschätzki wrote: Matus UHLAR - fantomas hat am 25.10.2023 08:16 CEST geschrieben: On 25.10.23 07:21, Niels Kobschätzki wrote: I'm having here a mail that scores as DKIM_INVALID. I tried sending the same mail to gmail for example and it tells me that DKIM is

Re: Defining what the default welcomelist means

On 20240412 15:56:15, Greg Troxel wrote: I see it very slightly differently, but mostly agree Bill Cole writes: 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs need the support of a corroborating would-be receiver. Agreed. Or maybe we take requests to add only from recei

Re: Defining what the default welcomelist means

On 20240412 16:14:44, Greg Troxel wrote: jdow writes: One pesky detail still exists. There is a very broad fuzzy area where my spam is your ham and vice versa. You could probably drive yourself to an early grave trying to get the perfect Bayes training plus perfect rule set. spam is bulk and

Re: Score 0.001

On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote: Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the

Re: Score 0.001

On 20240509 23:57:12, Thomas Barth wrote: Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat): Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth: Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with other

Re: Score 0.001

On 20240511 14:56:51, Greg Troxel wrote: Thomas Barth writes: Am 2024-05-11 21:54, schrieb Bill Cole: I have no idea who the Debian "spam analysts" are but I am certain that they are not doing any sort of data-driven dynamic adjustments of scores based on a threshold of 6.3 nor are they (obvi

Re: Score 0.001

Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS? {^_^} On 20240512 06:56:59, Thomas Barth wrote: Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel: I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to 6.31, then probably they should not be doing that. This is a status

Re: A Plan to Stop Violence on Social Media

On 2015-12-16 14:15, Wrolf wrote: Video/audio/stills are a problem. How about crowd sourcing ISIS identification, with sufficient votes (of sufficient reputation) leading to RBL style blocking by IP address, and retroactive elimination of posts spread across all media? BTW, I am aware that Face

Re: I have developed a new method of blocking spam that's a game changer

Setup some accounts to receive LKML, Ubuntu, Fedora, and several other technical high volume mailing lists as well as normal email. Let us know how it works. I'm reminded of a mantra of mine from some years back here, "One man's spam is another man's ham." You must also handle this phenomenon,

Re: My new method for blocking spam - REVEALED!

And just how well does this work against spearfishing? And would the same magic list work for ma and pa Kettle well into their 80s only receiving emails from their children and Freddie Burfle with his heads buried in a corporate accounts payable office? {^_^} On 2016-01-20 08:52, Marc Perkel

Re: My new method for blocking spam - REVEALED!

I wonder how this differs from some of the classifiers within CRM114. Several of them seem to work on phrases (with high costs) or single words. {^_^} On 2016-01-20 11:05, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:52:05 -0800 Marc Perkel wrote: Suppose I get an email with the subject line

Re: My new method for blocking spam - example

On 2016-01-20 13:26, Matt Garretson wrote: I am not an expert but it does seem like the main novel thing is how (and how many) multi-word tokens are generated. I use have been using multi-word tokens with bogofilter for years and it does help. Of course bogofilter only uses adjacent words -- pe

Re: My new method for blocking spam - REVEALED!

rs as well. To be a little clearer. This new system isn't perfect. And it's main strength is identifying good email. It does catch a lot more spam for sure but when people scream at me it's because I blocked something important. So think of this more as detecting ham as it's big fea

Re: New Install - Tons of Spam Getting Through

On 2016-08-18 17:11, RW wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:14:47 -0500 Jerry Malcolm wrote: I'm still trying to see why I'm not getting the report back. I've gone all the way back to the source code that does the streaming of the spamd invocation on port 783. I can't seem to find the documentati

Re: SoughtRules

On 2016-08-29 17:51, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: Am 30.08.2016 um 02:45 schrieb John Hardin: On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Anthony Hoppe wrote: I just learned about the sought ruleset via https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ImproveAccuracy. Is this ruleset still actively maintained? I'm considering imp

Re: SoughtRules

On 2016-08-29 22:42, Axb wrote: On 08/30/2016 07:32 AM, jdow wrote: On 2016-08-29 17:51, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: Am 30.08.2016 um 02:45 schrieb John Hardin: On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Anthony Hoppe wrote: I just learned about the sought ruleset via https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin

Re: HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and explanation

Yeah, it should have a much higher score. {O.O} On 2016-09-25 12:12, Alex wrote: Hi, I'm seeing quite a few FPs with HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and its score of 2.0. Isn't that kind of high for a rule that doesn't even have a description? Can someone explain what the rule does, and consider whether i

Re: HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and explanation

On 2016-09-25 12:39, Alex wrote: Hi, On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Alex wrote: Hi, I'm seeing quite a few FPs with HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and its score of 2.0. Isn't that kind of high for a rule that doesn't even have a descript

Re: Absurd mail headers in new spam

On 2017-05-31 16:59, Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge wrote: On Wed, 31 May 2017, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Benny Pedersen wrote: John Hardin skrev den 2017-06-01 00:29: > That sort of thing has happened before, and there are rules to *try* > to catch nonsense headers in my sandbox,

Re: updates.spamassassin.org gone?

No A or PTR record: ===8<--- [jdow@thursday ~]$ dig updates.spamassassin.org ns1.apache.org all ; <<>> DiG 9.9.4-RedHat-9.9.4-50.el7_3.1 <<>> updates.spamassassin.org ns1.apache.org all ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QU

Re: [SOLVED] I'm an idiot

On 2017-07-07 03:38, Rainer Sokoll wrote: Am 06.07.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Rainer Sokoll : [...] Hm, I got an email from cron: ---8<-- /etc/cron.daily/spamassassin: error: unable to refresh mirrors file for channel updates.spamassassin.org, using old file channel: could not find wor

Re: In anyone else getting 325KB spams from cont...@cron-job.org?

the real payload, a URL, stuck between them. {^_^} Joanne On 2017-09-14 15:35, Benny Pedersen wrote: jdow skrev den 2017-09-15 00:16: On 2017-09-14 14:06, Benny Pedersen wrote: Dianne Skoll skrev den 2017-09-14 20:38: https://cron-job.org/en/spam-statement/ They are victims of a joe-job.

Re: List of "banned" words/bounce to sender

From: "Daniel McDonald" Sent: Monday, 2010/August/09 05:28 On 8/9/10 6:58 AM, "Martin Gregorie" wrote: On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 14:17 +0300, Henrik K wrote: On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 14:00 -0500, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) wro

Re: List of "banned" words/bounce to sender

From: "Martin Gregorie" Sent: Monday, 2010/August/09 15:45 On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 07:28 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote: So, you are recommending that he use a plugin to query 70,000 records from a database, and perform 140,000 body matches, for every e-mail message he receives? It should be p

Re: List of "banned" words/bounce to sender

From: "Martin Gregorie" Sent: Monday, 2010/August/09 18:08 On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 17:42 -0700, jdow wrote: From: "Martin Gregorie" > Something like this will match a sequence of two capitalised name > words, > including hyphenated ones, and extract the name wor

Re: Spamassassin and no whitelisting

OK, you use the file local.cf. Are you sure you are modifying the correct local.cf. You rather need to be able to use, advisable or not, whitelist_from if whitelist_from_rcvd or other whitelist_from_ variants are going to work. So let's get that working first. Determine where the REAL local.c

Re: Spamassassin and no whitelisting

- Original Message - From: "Josef Karliak" To: "jdow" Cc: Sent: Sunday, 2010/August/15 22:20 Subject: Re: Spamassassin and no whitelisting Hi, local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassisn, spamd load it at startup. Spamassassisn work, test runs except whitelist :-/ : Aug 1

Re: Spamassassin and no whitelisting

That -c shows what you are doing wrong. "-c /etc/mail/spamassassin" is the path to the directory. That is what you should use. I am not sure what SpamAssassin is using for its configuration. {^_^} - Original Message - From: "Josef Karliak" To: "jdow"

Re: spam CAUGHT, now how to catch spammer

From: "John Hardin" Sent: Tuesday, 2010/September/07 10:02 On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Per Jessen wrote: John Hardin wrote: Sorry to mislead. SPAM was caught by spamassassin. How can I get this guy stopped? IP addresses are: 67.50.37.35,.36,.69,.75 Ah. Yes, that's a different question. (1) Find

Re: spam CAUGHT, now how to catch spammer

I suspect that entire 23 subnet is sour and should be blocked. {^_^} - Original Message - From: "Martin Gregorie" Sent: Tuesday, 2010/September/07 17:18 On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 16:05 -0700, jdow wrote: whois 67.50.37.35 There's something odd about that IP all ri

Re: Question about Max msg size

From: "durwood" Sent: Wednesday, 2010/October/06 14:38 What amavisd-new finally did was to pass the first (x) bytes to SA so ?> that at least the spam didn't get a RBL free pass. Nothing like that in spamd/spamc, but why not open a bug? Because it *is* filed already. Please first search

Re: Question about Max msg size

From: "Karsten Bräckelmann" Sent: Wednesday, 2010/October/06 16:20 On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:38 -0700, durwood wrote: > Because it *is* filed already. Please first search bugzilla, then open > a bug report. Pinging this thread to see if there's been any progress or decision on this bug.

Re: Misguided energy (was Re: Do we need a new SMTP protocol? (OT))

Sorry bubbie, send me a challenge and you go into the evil list, which tends to be a permanent /dev/null redirect. This is iron clad on a mailing list. Direct I may or may not consign. C/R is plain evil as I have encountered it in the past. On mailing lists it's beyond evil as it generates challen

Re: Should Emails Have An Expiration Date

ABSOLUTELY NOT I like to keep sale information around if I've bought anything based on the sale. That keeps my records complete. If the email disappeared under me and a dispute arose I'd have no recourse. {^_^} On 2011/02/28 12:42, Matt wrote: I think this would be a great idea. Many end us

Re: Should Emails Have An Expiration Date

On 2011/03/01 09:30, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: On 28/02/2011 5:12 PM, Matt wrote: > I think this would be a great idea. Many end users never bother to > delete old emails and on some, such as sales etc, there is no valid > reason for them to countinue to waste disk and server space. > > http://www

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

We, it IS a small number by Nigerian scam standards. So why not a small score? - She ran that way FAST {O,o} On 2011/03/03 16:40, Dennis German wrote: Can someone comment on the low score assigned to the email located at http://www.cccu.us/hundre

Re: how to disable network tests?

On 2011/03/11 13:02, David F. Skoll wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:51:44 -0800 (PST) John Hardin wrote: ...your email is so time-critical that you can't wait an extra ten seconds for it to be delivered? On a busy server, a ten-second latency in scanning mail could kill you... As another post

Re: how to disable network tests?

On 2011/03/12 17:25, RW wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:00:57 -0600 (CST) Dave Funk wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, RW wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:39:58 -1000 "Warren Togami Jr." wrote: If it is taking 10 seconds per message then you likely have some kind of serious misconfiguration. It de

Re: SA and Spear Phishing

On 2011/03/17 13:28, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 03/18, Hamad Ali wrote: > No. Michael doesn't want to help you and Karsten doesn't want you to > participate in mass-checks because of your behavior on this list. Are you referring to ban on masschecks, or ban on receiving any s

Re: SA and Spear Phishing

On 2011/03/18 15:48, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 03/18, jdow wrote: As far as trust for mass checks "Hamad Ali" would have to trust the custodians of the mass check data with the raw email stream data he submits. No, participating in mass checks does not require sending in al

Re: SA and Spear Phishing

m. The original message > has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label > similar future email. If you have any questions, see > jdow for details. > > Content preview:> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:06:15 -0700> From: j...@earthlink.net > >

Re: SA and Spear Phishing

On 2011/03/18 18:33, Hamad Ali wrote: Subject: Re: SA and Spear Phishing From: guent...@rudersport.de To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:02:35 +0100 (a) Never hand out your password. Less so in mail. No administrator ever will as

Re: SA and Spear Phishing

On 2011/03/18 18:38, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote: - John Hardin said: Phishing is his next project, and that even a well trained naive bayes filter might not detect it. let's be on touch on this matter then. Any progress or collaboration is highly welcomed on my side

Re: Scanning Mailing-List Posts

On 2011/03/18 21:05, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 20:25 -0700, jdow wrote: Interesting: (I think you have bigger problems than mere spear-phishing. 1.6 RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXYRBL: NJABL: sender is an open proxy [64p79p213p206 listed in

Re: SA and Spear Phishing

On 2011/03/18 21:16, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 20:58 -0700, jdow wrote: Other obvious information to be filtered would include SSNs. For privacy reasons filter for numbers that look like SSNs, reflect to user with a were you sure wrapper, and if the user responds yes send

Re: BUG : all messages rule RP_8BIT

On 2011/03/22 14:48, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: On 22/03/2011 7:02 PM, Bagnoud Thierry [ezwww.ch] wrote: until 21 mars 2011 after the normal cron.daily/update_spamassassin, Spamassassin report all messages with the rule RP_8BIT header RP_8BIT Return-Path:raw =~ /[^\000-\177]/ describe RP_8BIT Re

Re: Suddenly tons of spam

On 2011/03/29 11:30, RW wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:55:51 -0500 Max wrote: Heres the output of spamassassin -D --lint: [29434] dbg: logger: adding facilities: all [29434] dbg: logger: logging level is DBG [29434] dbg: generic: SpamAssassin version Update to the current version. It's not w

Re: Suddenly tons of spam

On 2011/03/29 12:15, Mikael Syska wrote: Hi, On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:07 PM, missingshrink wrote: Not to hijack this thread - but I am experiencing the same issue. Well ... same problem. I too - started experiencing tons of spam getting through since a few weeks ago. Okay. Erm, tons

Re: Editing Headers for SA Spam Report

On 2011/04/25 05:01, Paul Hugill wrote: Hi All, I have SA (v3.2.3) installed along with hMailServer and it is working great but I just wanted to check if you can make changes to the default headers that are inherited on the spam report. I would like to include an extra one so that this header 'X

Re: Dumb questions

Does 99.9% sound good, Warren? A well trained BAYES and a good selection of rules helps a lot. {o.o} On 2011/05/06 13:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: On 5/6/2011 9:19 AM, Greg Lentz wrote: Well, since it looks like SA 3.2 hasn't been getting rules for a couple of years, that probably isn't as cri

Re: Interword capitalization - solved

Help! My iPad does not work on FaceBook. Bet that hits it as a subject. {^_-} On 2011/05/10 06:01, Bowie Bailey wrote: On 5/10/2011 7:59 AM, Mynabbler wrote: Mynabbler wrote: Does someone have a rule for interword capitalization? Unfortunately no takers for the question. I came up with th

Re: Interword capitalization - solved and improved

Add "on YouTube" and Bob's your uncle. But it is a tad contrived. {^_-} On 2011/05/11 03:58, Mynabbler wrote: jdow wrote: header __MN_IWCAPSubject =~ /[a-z][A-Z][a-z]/ Help! My iPad does not work on FaceBook. Bet that hits it as a subject. Nope. Matches only t

Re: ok, we all get spam.. but.. spam warning us we opted out?

On 2011/07/26 16:41, Michael Scheidell wrote: I really don't like to make fun of most spammers. they can't spell, and can't make an honest living at anything but tricking 13 yr olds into downloading prn. But, this one is too funny to pass by. Needless to say, I am not posting the whole thing, j

Re: ok, we all get spam.. but.. spam warning us we opted out?

On 2011/07/27 13:23, John Hardin wrote: On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Michael Scheidell wrote: it seems that people have gotten really stupid. sending an email, where they ACKNOWLEDGE that I opted out, yet they decided to email me anyway? Maybe you'll opt back in. Please? Look what nice shiny we'l

KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB

KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB is misfiring with great consistency on the LKML. This is not good. {^_^}

Re: KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB

On 2011/08/11 14:28, Axb wrote: On 2011-08-11 23:21, jdow wrote: KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB is misfiring with great consistency on the LKML. This is not good. {^_^} what MLM is doing that? The one the LKML uses, of course. {O,o} I am not sure if that is the MLM's fault or the user

Re: KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB

On 2011/08/11 18:39, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:40 -0700, jdow wrote: >>> KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB is misfiring with great consistency on the LKML. >>> This is not good. It's a known issue. There is at least one ISP and LKML rewriting *MUA* gene

For any URIBL sort here

Out of addlepated curiosity why is scientificlinux.org listed? {^_^}

Re: linkedin messages

Best put that in your own personal user_prefs. Some people want them. {^_^} On 2011/08/13 13:57, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: And even if you are a card carrying member of LinkedIn, header J_CANT_STOP Subject =~ /^LinkedIn Network Updates/ score J_CANT_STOP 222 is needed, as even LinkedIn staff a

Re: Increasing score based on membership to commercial whitelist

Something more interesting would be to give then nominal scores, say 0.01. Then you can use hit statistics to determine whether or not you should use the whitelist and how good or bad it might be. (I suspect results might be surprising.) {^_^} On 2011/09/25 10:46, Roger Marquis wrote: RW wrote:

Re: "Your mailbox has exceeded..."

On 2011/09/30 10:04, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Ned Slider wrote: On 30/09/11 01:41, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: Sure a lot of "Your mailbox has exceeded" spam these days. I'll use body J_MAILBOX_FULL /^Your mailbox has exceeded/ score J_MAILBOX_FULL ... myself for now. I've se

Re: Spam email many have RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED

On 2011/10/11 12:30, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:27:04 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: And I have my own IP reputation project that could use your data: http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/ shame on microsoft not letting me have ie9, shame on you not let me see your page as

Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+}

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/12 16:35, Noel Butler wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 12:49 -0700, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} What makes them idiot

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/12 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} what are stopping you

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} earthlink.net net is a spam s

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 01:17, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 13.10.2011 10:07, schrieb jdow: On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want A

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 03:44, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 21:45 -0700, jdow wrote: A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin. Minor point: fetchmail is known to be buggy, amongst which is a bad habit of leaving previously read mail in the source mailbox

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 05:43, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote: Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable package for SL6.1. Look at your distro's repo first: its a Fedora supported package, so I'd expect other distros to

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 05:44, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700, jdow wrote: what are stopping you from add there ip to trusted_networks ? A bug I reported several years ago between fetchmail and SpamAssassin. hmp, spamassassin still can excempt whitelisted/blacklisted ips, if

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 05:54, RW wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:45:18 -0700 jdow wrote: On 2011/10/12 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:12 -0700, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't wan

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 07:21, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} Excuse me! Earthlink servers ar

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 07:24, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/13/2011 12:32 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 07:26, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/13/2011 1:16 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote: On 13/10/2011 10:07, jdow wrote: On 2011/10/13 00:32, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 12.10.2011 21:49, schrieb jdow: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 08:18, Marc Perkel wrote: On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, jdow wrote: The idiots who run that one have put the Earthlink smtp servers into their list. So I am opting out of it. I don't want ALL my received mail marked as spam. Damn fools. {+_+} If by some mistake we actuall

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 14:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 10/13, jdow wrote: 3.0 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL RBL: Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK [207.69.195.183 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com] None of the blacklists, or software involved, are maintained by perfect

Re: Good bye RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL

On 2011/10/13 16:31, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 13:56 -0700, jdow wrote: On 2011/10/13 05:43, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 04:50 -0700, jdow wrote: Thank you, sir. I'll check [getmail] out. RPM Forge has a suitable package for SL6.1. Look at your dis

Re: new paradigm

Whereas my concerns for your mathematical nonsense is zip, nada, zero, nothing, goawayyoubothermechild. Seriously, your claim is patent nonsense yet you expect people to listen to you. That IS rather childish behavior, you know. You can't have been running anti-spam tools long enough to reach you

Re: Has the effect of '__' changed recently?

Even with that, RW, he can't have been running long enough to give that number. He needs a decent sample of failures before his number is better a figure at least ten times the figure he gave. And NO system with that many mails fails to make false positives unless one is arrogant enough to declar

Question for experts....

Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. {^_^}

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/27 13:43, Thierry Besancon wrote: On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. According to C standards, a number beginning with a 0 is an base 8

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/27 13:52, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:26 -0800, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. What piece of junk software presented an IP in that format

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/27 15:05, Mahmoud Khonji wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/2011 01:26 AM, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. {^_^} adding to that

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 05:43, RW wrote: On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:43:00 +0100 Thierry Besancon wrote: On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers. According to C standards

Re: Question for experts....

On 2011/11/28 14:36, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 11/28, jdow wrote: Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a If you have multiple emails with this pattern that spamassassin is not catching, please provide them via

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >