You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by mouss <us...@free.fr> on 2005/12/28 00:14:55 UTC
SA FP on a gfi newsletter
I recently got an FP for an (opted in) gfi.com newsletter.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.454 required=5 tests=[BLANK_LINES_70_80=1.236,
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS=0.879,
FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.052, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY=0.126,
MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART=0.241, SUBJECT_EXCESS_BASE64=0]
So they managed to cross the line;-p
Question: Isn't DNS_FROM_RFC_POST score too high?
The message is a bit long, so I am not posting it here. or should I?
Re: SA FP on a gfi newsletter
Posted by Raymond Dijkxhoorn <ra...@prolocation.net>.
Hi!
>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.454 required=5 tests=[BLANK_LINES_70_80=1.236,
>> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS=0.879,
>> FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.052, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY=0.126,
>> MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART=0.241, SUBJECT_EXCESS_BASE64=0]
>>
>> So they managed to cross the line;-p
>>
>> Question: Isn't DNS_FROM_RFC_POST score too high?
> I think so. I've set the score to 0 in my local.cf. IMO, the postmaster list
> from rfc-ignorant.org takes anti-spamming a little too far into false
> positive territory. Sure, people should play by the rules, and it would be
> nice if they did, but considering the *major* domains that are on there, I'd
> rather my users be able to get mail and me keep my job than to be militant
> about everyone sticking to RFCs.
Especially major company's should be able to get their act together.
Wasnt GFI about mailsecurity ? ;)
Bye,
Raymond.
Re: SA FP on a gfi newsletter
Posted by Mike Jackson <mj...@barking-dog.net>.
> I recently got an FP for an (opted in) gfi.com newsletter.
>
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.454 required=5 tests=[BLANK_LINES_70_80=1.236,
> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44,
> DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS=0.879,
> FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.052, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY=0.126,
> MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART=0.241, SUBJECT_EXCESS_BASE64=0]
>
> So they managed to cross the line;-p
>
> Question: Isn't DNS_FROM_RFC_POST score too high?
I think so. I've set the score to 0 in my local.cf. IMO, the postmaster list
from rfc-ignorant.org takes anti-spamming a little too far into false
positive territory. Sure, people should play by the rules, and it would be
nice if they did, but considering the *major* domains that are on there, I'd
rather my users be able to get mail and me keep my job than to be militant
about everyone sticking to RFCs.