You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu> on 2016/08/15 12:01:14 UTC
google spamming ?
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-10.25 / 15.00]
WHITELIST_DMARC(-7.00)[google.com]
WHITELIST_SPF_DKIM(-3.00)[google.com]
SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[]
CLAMAV_VIRUS_CLEAN(-2.00)[]
DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.25)[google.com]
MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative, text/plain]
FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]
R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(0.00)[]
R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[google.com]
HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2(1.00)[]
X-Rspamd-Server: 127.0.0.1
X-Rspamd-Scan-Time: 0.22
X-Rspamd-Queue-ID: 654531BE12E
is what rspamd see them as, but its a spam, i can forward it to rule
maintainer in spamassassin on request
how to report it to dnswl now since i use rspamd and not spamassassin
any more
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On 2016-08-15 15:26, lists@rhsoft.net wrote:
> when you switch from SA to rspamd then switch sending your
> contentfilter related stuff to the rspamd list instead the SA list -
> common sense - that's it
what if i like to share ?
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by "lists@rhsoft.net" <li...@rhsoft.net>.
Am 15.08.2016 um 15:21 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> On 2016-08-15 15:16, Joe Quinn wrote:
>
>> Have you tried asking on either the rspamd or dnswl mailing lists?
>
> why should i waste my time with it ?
>
> i have reported spam to dnswl
why do you waste *our* time with it?
when you switch from SA to rspamd then switch sending your contentfilter
related stuff to the rspamd list instead the SA list - common sense -
that's it
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by "lists@rhsoft.net" <li...@rhsoft.net>.
Am 15.08.2016 um 15:47 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> On 2016-08-15 15:30, Joe Quinn wrote:
>
>> If you reported it already, why are you still asking how?
>
> not possible for me to run spamassassin -r here
one reason more to not post to *this list* at all instead a) complain at
rspamd and b) ask how the replacement for "spamassassin -r" is called if
one exists
anyways the tags without message headers are not helpful since "google"
can mean all or nothing from free gmail to googlegroups, youtube and
dozens of other subdomains and if you "want to share" you need at least
to share the whole message so that anybody can compare it with SA
the initial post as it was made is useless and in fact SPAM itself
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On 2016-08-15 15:30, Joe Quinn wrote:
> If you reported it already, why are you still asking how?
not possible for me to run spamassassin -r here, but i found that
reports can be mailed on there homepage
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by Joe Quinn <jq...@pccc.com>.
On 8/15/2016 9:21 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2016-08-15 15:16, Joe Quinn wrote:
>
>> Have you tried asking on either the rspamd or dnswl mailing lists?
>
> why should i waste my time with it ?
>
> i have reported spam to dnswl
>
If you reported it already, why are you still asking how?
> how to report it to dnswl now since i use rspamd and not spamassassin
> any more
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On 2016-08-15 15:16, Joe Quinn wrote:
> Have you tried asking on either the rspamd or dnswl mailing lists?
why should i waste my time with it ?
i have reported spam to dnswl
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by Joe Quinn <jq...@pccc.com>.
On 8/15/2016 8:37 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2016-08-15 14:21, Joe Quinn wrote:
>
>> This is not the mailing list for rspamd or dnswl. How is SA involved
>> in this issue?
>
> :(
>
> i give up !
>
Have you tried asking on either the rspamd or dnswl mailing lists?
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On 2016-08-15 14:21, Joe Quinn wrote:
> This is not the mailing list for rspamd or dnswl. How is SA involved
> in this issue?
:(
i give up !
Re: google spamming ?
Posted by Joe Quinn <jq...@pccc.com>.
On 8/15/2016 8:01 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-10.25 / 15.00]
> WHITELIST_DMARC(-7.00)[google.com]
> WHITELIST_SPF_DKIM(-3.00)[google.com]
> SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[]
> CLAMAV_VIRUS_CLEAN(-2.00)[]
> DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.25)[google.com]
> MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative, text/plain]
> FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]
> R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(0.00)[]
> R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[google.com]
> HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2(1.00)[]
> X-Rspamd-Server: 127.0.0.1
> X-Rspamd-Scan-Time: 0.22
> X-Rspamd-Queue-ID: 654531BE12E
>
> is what rspamd see them as, but its a spam, i can forward it to rule
> maintainer in spamassassin on request
>
> how to report it to dnswl now since i use rspamd and not spamassassin
> any more
>
>
>
This is not the mailing list for rspamd or dnswl. How is SA involved in
this issue?