* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > This mail is probably spam. The original message has been attached > along with this report, so you can recognize or block similar unwanted > mail in future. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. > > Content preview: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Things > were going so well, too. SA was getting so good at trapping spam that I > am now filtering three different domains through it, and was able to > report to one domain's users that in all of last week, only three spam > slipped through (vs hundreds filtered out). [...] > > Content analysis details: (5.10 points, 5 required) > NO_REAL_NAME (0.8 points) From: does not include a real name > IN_REP_TO (-0.5 points) Has a In-Reply-To header > REFERENCES (-0.5 points) Has a valid-looking References header > FREE_PORN (4.3 points) BODY: Possible porn - Free Porn > EXCUSE_3 (0.1 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list > MEGA_SITE (2.9 points) BODY: Possible porn - Mega Porn > COMPLETELY_FREE (1.1 points) BODY: No such thing as a free lunch (2) > REMOVE_FROM_LIST (0.0 points) BODY: To be removed from list > ADULT_SITE (0.6 points) BODY: Possible porn - Adult Web Sites > KNOWN_MAILING_LIST (-0.9 points) Email came from some known mailing list software > PGP_SIGNATURE (-2.9 points) Contains a PGP-signed message > CLICK_BELOW (0.1 points) Asks you to click below > >
Content-Description: original message before SpamAssassin > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:07:54 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] Frustrating spam > > > Hash: SHA1 > > Things were going so well, too. SA was getting so good at trapping spam > that I am now filtering three different domains through it, and was able > to report to one domain's users that in all of last week, only three spam > slipped through (vs hundreds filtered out). > > Then this week, less than 48 hours, we already had six slip through. The > one below was the worst, because with text so obvious it SHOULD have been > caught! Either the porn rules aren't active here, or they aren't > working. (And as an end-user, without access to the primary control > files, I can't do anything about that.) > > 1) SA Developers: PLEASE provide some method whereby end-users like me > can implement header, body, and uri rules in user_prefs. > > 2) Can anyone run the spam below against a vanilla ruleset, 2.5[45] > and/or 2.6, and let me know if this spam should have been caught under > 2.54? > The above should tell you. I'm running 2.55 with razor 2.22. Cam -- Cam Ellison Ph.D. R.Psych. From Roberts Creek on B.C.'s incomparable Sunshine Coast cam(at)ellisonet(dot)ca camellison(at)dccnet(dot)com cam(at)fleuryassociates(dot)com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
