>
> I have moved the weight of the RBLs including Spamcop and Zen to 30.
>
> Hopefully this will cut it back although at the moment I am still getting
> mail through.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> MAIL 1
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from 254.Red-88-12-175.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [88.12.175.254] by
> mail.uk1host.co.uk with SMTP;
> Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:12:49 -0600
> Received: from obsidiannowzzz (HELO padrehost.localbayed)
> by losl7.verne.sd.biz with WQMTP; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:02:45 +0600
> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:55:45 -0200
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Arline Lam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SPAM] SPAM-HIGH: incredible prices for best drug$!
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Scanner: vacillate for perilla (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/)
> X-Virus-Scanner: AMaVis 0.2.0-pre6 / Virus Scan
> X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-SmarterMail-Spam: Bayesian Filtering, SpamAssassin 90.25 [raw: 36.1],
> SPF_Fail, ZEN
> X-MSKTag: [SPAM]
> X-MSK: DNS=2
>
> ------------------
>
> MAIL 2
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from adsl-pool2-41.metrotel.net.co [190.182.63.41] by
> mail.uk1host.co.uk with SMTP;
> Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:12:44 -0600
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Manuela Mainard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [SPAM] SPAM-HIGH: professor Michael Bugeja
> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:25:12 +0000
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> X-SmarterMail-Spam: SpamAssassin 58.75 [raw: 23.5], SPF_None, DNSBL-1,
> HOSTKARMA, SpamCop, ZEN
> X-MSKTag: [SPAM]
> X-MSK: DNS=2
>
> -----------------
> MAIL 3
> Return-Path: <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from u93e4.net.azartsat.pl [82.177.216.93] by mail.uk1host.co.uk
> with SMTP;
> Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:11:30 -0600
> Received: (from Latasha [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> by Latasha Petersen.net MqFx id g42Ls1T27291;
> Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:54:25 -0600
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Latasha Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:52:25 -0600
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SPAM] SPAM-HIGH: Apcal~is (Tadalafil)--The "S.u.p.e.r
> V.i.a.g.r.a" hkoprigmo -electrophoresis
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-SmarterMail-Spam: Bayesian Filtering, SpamAssassin 52.25 [raw: 20.9],
> SPF_None
> X-MSKTag: [SPAM]
> X-MSK: DNS=2
>
> Cheers
> Dave
> =====================================================
>
>
Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
>
>> I had a auto response
>> on my mail (which I have now removed) and I was getting 300+ spam over
>> night.
>>
>> I have marked it to enable for filtering and enable for incoming blocking
>> is
>> this correct?
>>
> Dave,
>
> First, it is good that you removed the "auto response" because some
> argue that this should never be done... and, certainly, no one should
> ever use an autoresponder if they don't already have exceptional spam
> filtering. A high percentage of spam has the "FROM" address forged, and
> many of these forged FROMs are real people who are innocent. If you are
> getting much spam past your spam filtering, then many innocent people
> will become a victim of your auto-responder as it responds back to them
> for spams that they really had nothing to do with. Additionally, you
> might have been getting notifications from your own server about these
> responders not be deliverable and/or these might have triggered
> backscatter from misconfigured servers. Auto-responders are already a
> messy business when the spam filtering is working well... but they are
> out-of-control bad when the spam filtering isn't up to par.
>
>> I have added all the stuff above and am still getting alot of spam,
>> medication, degree's and stop being floppy in the bedroom.
>>
>
> First, you couldn't have implemented "all" the stuff, because you
> haven't implemented my lists! :)
>
> But forget my lists for now... my lists are for going from good spam
> filtering to incredibly great spam filtering. But without my lists, you
> should be able to go from mediocre filtering to good filtering with only
> the "free" non-subscription lists I mentioned.
>
> I'm just not convinced that all those other lists missed so much.
>
> I have a suggestion:
>
> Post the sending IP addresses of 5 recent spams that made it past your
> filter... and post the URLs used by spammers within the content of 5
> recent spams. (I don't filter SA list mail... but in case others do, put
> a space before the "." in the domain names of those URLs so that your
> won't get blocked by other's filters when you reply back to the SA list)
>
> I'll let you know which of those DNSBLs I mentioned, if any,
> should/would have blocked the spams based on the Sender's IP and based
> on the links within the messages.
>
> We need to get to the bottom of what is really happening... are these
> REALLY being missed by ALL those lists?? ...Or are these REALLY being
> used (and scored?) properly by your filter??
>
> Those questions can't be answered without some examples.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rob McEwen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Domain-Name-SPAM-tp15891193p15916870.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
