On 12/11/2017 10:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.12.2017 um 16:44 schrieb Mark London:
I'm getting a lot of flakey spam messages, that don't trigger any significant spamassassin rules, even though it obviously looks really bogus.
Here's an example.   Any suggestions?
https://pastebin.com/bZUt0ThS
These spams are being sent to my gmail account, and then forwarded to my work address I tried stripping off all the forwarding headers, but it doesn't trigger any RBLs

don't mangle samples!
you make it impossible to helping others
S25R_4 is pretty sure caused by your touching
Content analysis details:   (10.0 points, 5.5 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 3.0 DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN No valid author signature and domain not in DNS
 1.5 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
                            [score: 0.5000]
 0.5 MIME_HTML_ONLY         BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
 1.5 HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD  BODY: HTML has unbalanced "head" tags
 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
 0.0 T_OBFU_ATTACH_MISSP    Obfuscated attachment type and misspaced From
 1.0 HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG  HTML-only message, but there is no HTML tag
2.3 S25R_4 T_S25R: Bottom of rDNS ends w/ num, next lvl has num-num 0.1 BOGOFILTER_UNSURE BOGOFILTER: message is Unsure with bogofilter-score
                             0.5000

Sorry, I tried to strip off the forwarding headers. But for some reason, that triggers 25R_4. Here's the full email.

https://pastebin.com/mssjURra

I wonder why it doesn't trigger any image rules.

HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD was not enabled rule for me, so I enabled it. I also increased the score of DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN.

Still, it seems so bogus an email, because of it's manually created html (href and img includes both upper and lower case characters), that a more major rule should be catching it, maybe?

- Mark

Reply via email to