Hi,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Benny Pedersen <m...@junc.eu> wrote:
> John Hardin skrev den 2013-06-17 20:52:
>
>>> http://pastebin.com/qwdtSqJd
>>
>> Well, that *is* gibberish in a STYLE tag. Bad coder, no biscuit.
>>
>> If it persists I can add an exclusion for mail from groupon.com
>
> Content analysis details: (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> ---- ----------------------
> --------------------------------------------------
> -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
> trust
> [50.115.211.238 listed in list.dnswl.org]
> -1.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
> domain
> 0.0 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
> -2.0 RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE RBL: Sender in ReturnPath Safe - Contact
> safe...@returnpath.net
> [Return Path SenderScore Safe List (formerly]
> [Habeas Safelist) -
> <http://www.senderscorecertified.com>]
> -3.0 RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED RBL: Sender in ReturnPath Certified - Contact
> cert...@returnpath.net
> [Return Path SenderScore Certified {formerly]
> [Bonded Sender} -
> <http://www.senderscorecertified.com>]
> 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
> 3.2 STYLE_GIBBERISH Nonsense in HTML <STYLE> tag
>
> does it need more whitelistning ?
Just curious -- no bayes for you? You're subtracting a lot more for
RP_SAFE than I am.
> why is dkim not valid ?
Perhaps because I've manipulated the real sender to be 'example'? Mine
is signed properly here:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.822 tagged_above=-200 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
Thanks,
Alex
