>  Thanks
> 
> 1 scored like this:
> 
> Content analysis details:   (12.9 points, 5.0 required)
> 
>  pts rule name              description
> ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW      RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
>                             trust
>                             [70.103.162.29 listed in list.dnswl.org]
>  1.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          From-address is freemail domain
>  0.7 SPF_NEUTRAL            SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral)
>  0.0 DK_SIGNED              Domain Keys: message has a signature
>  0.0 SPF_HELO_FAIL          SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (fail)
> [SPF failed: Please see 
> http://www.openspf.org/Why?id=mx1.riseup.net&ip=10.8.0.3&receiver=cpollock.localdomain]
>  2.0 FREEMAIL_REPLYTO       Different freemail address found in Reply-To or 
> Body
>                              than From
>  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
>  1.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
>                             [score: 0.5005]
>  0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK           Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
>  2.2 DCC_CHECK              listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)
>                             [cpollock 1117; Body=1 Fuz1=many]
>                             [Fuz2=many]
>  0.0 DIGEST_MULTIPLE        Message hits more than one network digest check
>  0.1 RDNS_NONE              Delivered to trusted network by a host with no 
> rDNS
>  2.9 KAM_LOTTO1             Likely to be a e-Lotto Scam Email
>  2.5 L_UNVERIFIED_GMAIL     L_UNVERIFIED_GMAIL
>  1.0 SAGREY                 Adds 1.0 to spam from first-time senders
> 
> 2 scored:
> 
> Content analysis details:   (12.6 points, 5.0 required)
> 
>  pts rule name              description
> ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW      RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
>                             trust
>                             [70.103.162.29 listed in list.dnswl.org]


The number of DNSWL_LOW and DNSWL_MED misfires have gone up especially
in last two days. Even Marc's JMF_W misfires. 

What it means is these are "good" mailservers who normally relay ham and
have some weak links ( weak password etc ) that just got exposed

Also I notice a definite pattern. These are 419 scams and come up only
in the weekends.  Probably the spammers expect that action will be late
since most systems guys will be away from work ? 








Reply via email to