Re: "Dear Homeowner" spam

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

John Andersen writes:
> On Tuesday 09 January 2007 06:47, Jack Gostl wrote:
> > Now that you mention it, yes, it had a Geocities URL.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Andersen" <js...@pen.homeip.net>
> > To: <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: "Dear Homeowner" spam
> 
> One more reason to permanently blacklist geocities in SURBL IMHO.
> 
> Even a better reason for the Spamassassin team to find out how
> this spammer manages to consistently evade all filters.
> These spams have been slipping through for so long I'm starting
> to suspect an inside job.

Ha!

Interestingly, those spams hit only one of my personal spamtraps.  I
suspect careful listwashing.  I've added a few rules for testing
now...

--j.

Re: "Dear Homeowner" spam

[Jack Gostl <go...@argoscomp.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Justin Mason" <jm...@jmason.org>
To: "John Andersen" <js...@pen.homeip.net>
Cc: <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: "Dear Homeowner" spam


>
> John Andersen writes:
>> On Tuesday 09 January 2007 06:47, Jack Gostl wrote:
>> > Now that you mention it, yes, it had a Geocities URL.
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "John Andersen" <js...@pen.homeip.net>
>> > To: <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>
>> > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:09 PM
>> > Subject: Re: "Dear Homeowner" spam
>>
>> One more reason to permanently blacklist geocities in SURBL IMHO.
>>
>> Even a better reason for the Spamassassin team to find out how
>> this spammer manages to consistently evade all filters.
>> These spams have been slipping through for so long I'm starting
>> to suspect an inside job.
>
> Ha!
>
> Interestingly, those spams hit only one of my personal spamtraps.  I
> suspect careful listwashing.  I've added a few rules for testing
> now...
>

This is more important than it would seem. There are a growning number of 
spams that are managing to completely evade the Bayse testing. There is one 
from some jewelry chain, Russell Simons I think, that slips through with a 
Bayes of 0.