-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 19 December 2003 11:01, Scott Harris wrote: > *************************************************** > > This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill section 301. Under > Bill S. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress. This message cannot > be considered Spam as long as we include the way to be removed, Paragraph > (a)(c) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this email > may be stopped at no cost to you by UNSUBSCRIBING. > > *************************************************** > > > This, of course, causes rules to be triggered such as: > > Content analysis details: (10.1 points, 6.0 required) > > pts rule name description > ---- ---------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > 2.8 SENT_IN_COMPLIANCE BODY: Claims compliance with spam regulations > 0.7 NO_COST BODY: No such thing as a free lunch (3) > 0.6 OPT_IN_CAPS BODY: Talks about opting in (capitalized > version) > 2.7 BILL_1618 BODY: Claims compliance with Senate Bill 1618 > 0.7 CANNOT_BE_SPAM BODY: Claims "cannot be considered spam" > 0.3 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN BODY: HTML font color is unknown to us > 0.1 HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE BODY: HTML link text says "click here" > 1.2 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME > 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message > 1.0 HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE BODY: HTML font color is same as background > 0.5 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML > -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% > [score: 0.0000] > 3.0 BigEvilList_37 URI: Generated BigEvilList_37 > 1.4 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date > 0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below > > The first 5 are the ones that really penalized this message. > > Aside from the obvious solution of whitelisting this domain, what are the > options to allow these, and future messages through? Bayes clearly caught > it as ham, but didn't negate enough of the other hits. > > Also, what are the potential future ramifications for SA as more and more > legit mailing list emailers start adding such verbage to demonstrate their > legitimacy? >
Adding more words to and email does not make it legitimated. If they are legit emails list then they will cut the fluff. Spammer can add that to their emails as well as legit email list servers. I have seen many spammers use stuff like that and it still is spam. That my 2 cents. Douglas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/41KiSpWn8R0Z08URAgpxAKCesmgYxeGNl9qz+RL8g0Flg4cdewCfaORD mViSMrtWZma2K9U0L//ON4E= =QxcZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
