You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com> on 2014/10/07 01:07:19 UTC
Re: half-OT: please remove [spam]-markers from subjects
On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
>> of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list
>
> it is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters
> if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to drop
Those are very stupid filters then. Let me guess, the shitpile that is Barracuda? Honestly, shitpile implies a much higher value than I believe Barracuda has, at leas t ahit pile can be used to fertilize.
> there is a reason why i had that sieve-filter and i saw
> that tagging over many years from a lot of other users
> not only the one with Barracuda Networks products
You should never filter on Subject. Period.
--
"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it." - Sir
Thomas Beecham (1879 - 1961)
Re: half-OT: please remove [spam]-markers from subjects
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 07.10.2014 um 01:48 schrieb David Jones:
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
>
>>> On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
>>>>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
>>>>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
>>>>> of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list
>>>>
>>>> it is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters
>>>> if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to drop
>>>
>>> Those are very stupid filters then.
>
>> Huh?
>
>>> How else would you suggest that a spam filter mark messages that are
>> scored high enough to be "spammy" yet not high enough to be
>> discarded/rejected, in a manner that will clearly convey that status to
>> the end user?
>
> I completely agree with Lukreme that you should never modify the subject to
> indicate spam since users just reply back to the sender causing the sender to
> think the reply is spam
boah and at least try to avoid that was the point of my original post -
so can we now agree that [SPAM] as part of the subject is not the best
idea and continue to do other things?!
Re: half-OT: please remove [spam]-markers from subjects
Posted by David Jones <dj...@ena.com>.
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
> > On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
> >>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
> >>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
> >>> of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list
> >>
> >> it is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters
> >> if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to drop
> >
> > Those are very stupid filters then.
> Huh?
> > How else would you suggest that a spam filter mark messages that are
> scored high enough to be "spammy" yet not high enough to be
> discarded/rejected, in a manner that will clearly convey that status to
> the end user?
I completely agree with Lukreme that you should never modify the subject to
indicate spam since users just reply back to the sender causing the sender to
think the reply is spam. I filter for almost 100,000 mailboxes and I got tired
of explaining over and over when we tagged the subject. Now I just set the
"X-Spam-Status: Yes" and hopefully the mail client will work with that and
move it to the Junk folder. (Can't count on Outlook to do anything logical
though. The Junk Mail Filter in Outlook seems to have a mind of it's own
and it's not consistent.)
Re: half-OT: please remove spam-markers from subjects
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 07.10.2014 um 02:10 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> P.S.:
>> it was your "Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL" i
>> refered implicitly as i started that thread - mayb eyou can make clear
>> that the [SPAM] part was not your personal prefix for the SA list as
>> LuKreme repeatly pretends instead just accept the hint instead make a
>> stink
>
> Apologies for that, I'm not in the habit of editing the subject line (or
> even looking closely at it) when I reply. I will try to develop that habit
no reason to apologize, the only people which need to aplogize are the
ones pretending things without any need or knowledge how spamfilters are
setup for most users out there and even restart to do so days later
after the thread was done
my intention was just a friendly reminder because i had that old filter
from many years ago and i'm watching my junk-folder anaways for pull out
things to train bayes, so i just wondered why twice a SA-list message
landed there and though "uhm, for sure not the intention of the sender" :-)
Re: half-OT: please remove spam-markers from subjects
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
> P.S.:
> it was your "Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL" i refered
> implicitly as i started that thread - mayb eyou can make clear that the
> [SPAM] part was not your personal prefix for the SA list as LuKreme repeatly
> pretends instead just accept the hint instead make a stink
Apologies for that, I'm not in the habit of editing the subject line (or
even looking closely at it) when I reply. I will try to develop that
habit.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first time I saw a bagpipe, I thought the player was torturing
an octopus. I was amazed they could scream so loudly.
-- cat_herder_5263 on Y! SCOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
858 days since the first successful private support mission to ISS (SpaceX)
Re: half-OT: please remove spam-markers from subjects
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 07.10.2014 um 01:38 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
>
>> On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
>>>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK
>>>> to me
>>>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used
>>>> because
>>>> of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the
>>>> list
>>>
>>> it is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters
>>> if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to drop
>>
>> Those are very stupid filters then.
>
> Huh?
>
> How else would you suggest that a spam filter mark messages that are
> scored high enough to be "spammy" yet not high enough to be
> discarded/rejected, in a manner that will clearly convey that status to
> the end user?
he just thinks everybody out there study his mailheaders or even have
the knowledge to do so and write perfect filters by the headers while
that assumption is naive - that said, restart the thread once again
after 3 days is questionable to say it polite - if all people would be
that perfect they would not need the list
P.S.:
it was your "Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL" i
refered implicitly as i started that thread - mayb eyou can make clear
that the [SPAM] part was not your personal prefix for the SA list as
LuKreme repeatly pretends instead just accept the hint instead make a stink
Re: half-OT: please remove [spam]-markers from subjects
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
> On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net> wrote:
>>
>> Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
>>> [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
>>> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
>>> of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list
>>
>> it is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters
>> if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to drop
>
> Those are very stupid filters then.
Huh?
How else would you suggest that a spam filter mark messages that are
scored high enough to be "spammy" yet not high enough to be
discarded/rejected, in a manner that will clearly convey that status to
the end user?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown
in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws
that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They
disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit
crime. -- Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
858 days since the first successful private support mission to ISS (SpaceX)