Pierre
glad to see you've got time to check this email - I leave this to the users :-)
tends to be 1-2 per user per day, if that..much better than the 80+ spams a day they where getting!
-- Martin Hepworth Snr Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Pierre Thomson wrote:
I quarantine mail scoring between 6.0 and 12.0 (it's 99% spam) using MailScanner's quarantine system. It's delivered to a spambox that I check hourly during the day. We get only a couple of true FP's per week, and the last two were from two different AOL addresses.
For a quick fix, I took AOL off the list of "webmail" providers list in the FROM_WEBMAIL_END_NUMS6 test. I'll admit that it's a bit unusual to use SIX digits to make your name unique; addresses with than many digits are likely to be bogus.
Pierre
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 8:43 AM To: Pierre Thomson Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Unreasonable penalty for AOL addresses ending in numbers?
Pierre
depends on how you handle a score of 6.651 in MailScanner....
I deliver (with Tagged subject) scores from 5-10, and block anything with score > 10, so this kind of thing still ends up in the recipients email.
You could lower the score of the rules in spam.assassin.prefs.conf, or whitelist known users in the same file..
-- Martin Hepworth Snr Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Pierre Thomson wrote:
I have had a couple of FP's recently from valid AOL users. AOL recommends appending digits to your screen name to make it unique, and many users do that. The result (sender using AOL 9.0 client, SA 2.63) is a penalty of 6.39 points right off the bat. Isn't that a bit extreme?
Pierre Thomson BIC
Received: from imo-m15.mx.aol.com (imo-m15.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.205]) by mail1.domain.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i882gcu10544 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:38 -0400 Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by imo-m15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.4.) id 4.13c.83038c (3972) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:29 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:29 EDT Subject: Re: Equipment To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1094611349" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5112 X-Local-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information X-Local-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Local-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=6.651, required 6, ADDR_NUMS_AT_BIGSITE 2.70, BAYES_40 -0.00, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0.99, FROM_WEBMAIL_END_NUMS6 2.70, HTML_MESSAGE 0.10, NO_REAL_NAME 0.16) X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2004 02:42:45.0517 (UTC) FILETIME=[8554E3D0:01C4954D]
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
**********************************************************************
