You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Bart Schaefer <ba...@gmail.com> on 2004/08/24 20:35:29 UTC
SA 2.64 vs. ChoiceMail
I just had a ChoiceMail challenge tagged as spam by SA 2.64 with the
following analysis (apologies in advance for line wrapping that may be
inflicted by gmail):
Content analysis details: (8.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.7 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers
0.6 MSG_ID_NO_DOMAIN No domain part in Message-Id header
0.3 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
-0.0 BAYES_44 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
[score: 0.4459]
0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
2.9 FAKED_HOTMAIL_DAV X-Originating-Email header does not match From
1.0 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format
0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below
3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with the SA rule
definitions, just providing a heads-up that ChoiceMail may be doing
something stupid. (Independent of whether it's stupid to filter spam
with challenge/response in the first place.)
Re: SA 2.64 vs. ChoiceMail
Posted by "Michele Neylon : Blacknight Solutions" <mi...@blacknightsolutions.com>.
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 14:48 -0700, jdow wrote:
> For what it is worth I consider challenge/response as spam
Agreed.
If I am in a good mood I may simply delete it, if I'm in a bad
mood ...............
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
http://www.blacknight.ie
059 9137101
Re: SA 2.64 vs. ChoiceMail
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
For what it is worth I consider challenge/response as spam if I see the
challenge in my mail box. I tend to prefilter those addresses which do
this to /dev/null, particularly if they come from a mailing list message.
I don't have time to respond to challenges from all and sundry. It is a
VERY broken method.
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bart Schaefer" <ba...@gmail.com>
> I just had a ChoiceMail challenge tagged as spam by SA 2.64 with the
> following analysis (apologies in advance for line wrapping that may be
> inflicted by gmail):
>
> Content analysis details: (8.7 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> ---- ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------
----
> 0.7 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers
> 0.6 MSG_ID_NO_DOMAIN No domain part in Message-Id header
> 0.3 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
> -0.0 BAYES_44 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
> [score: 0.4459]
> 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 2.9 FAKED_HOTMAIL_DAV X-Originating-Email header does not match From
> 1.0 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format
> 0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below
> 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook
>
> I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with the SA rule
> definitions, just providing a heads-up that ChoiceMail may be doing
> something stupid. (Independent of whether it's stupid to filter spam
> with challenge/response in the first place.)
Re: SA 2.64 vs. ChoiceMail
Posted by mike <mi...@topstexas.com>.
but wait I may have jumped the gun. my domain is choiceinv.com
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>I just had a ChoiceMail challenge tagged as spam by SA 2.64 with the
>following analysis (apologies in advance for line wrapping that may be
>inflicted by gmail):
>
>Content analysis details: (8.7 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
>---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> 0.7 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers
> 0.6 MSG_ID_NO_DOMAIN No domain part in Message-Id header
> 0.3 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
>-0.0 BAYES_44 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
> [score: 0.4459]
> 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 2.9 FAKED_HOTMAIL_DAV X-Originating-Email header does not match From
> 1.0 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format
> 0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below
> 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook
>
>I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with the SA rule
>definitions, just providing a heads-up that ChoiceMail may be doing
>something stupid. (Independent of whether it's stupid to filter spam
>with challenge/response in the first place.)
>
>
>
--
Michael H. Collins Admiral, Penguinista Navy
http://linuxlink.com
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ / No HTML/RTF in email
x No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect for open standards
"If you are going through hell, keep going."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Re: SA 2.64 vs. ChoiceMail
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>.
At 02:35 PM 8/24/2004, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> 2.9 FAKED_HOTMAIL_DAV X-Originating-Email header does not match From
> 1.0 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format
> 0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below
> 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook
>
>I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with the SA rule
>definitions, just providing a heads-up that ChoiceMail may be doing
>something stupid
It looks like choicemail is being heavily penalized for pretending messages
were generated by the local mailclient, even when they were not.
Sidenote:
anyone considered this rule:
header
CHOICEMAIL_CHALLENGE exists:X-ChoiceMail-Registration-Request
score CHOICEMAIL_CHALLENGE 0.1
Of course, you can opt to make the score positive or negative, large or
small, depending on your personal desire to receive or filter choicemail
challenges.
Re: SA 2.64 vs. ChoiceMail
Posted by mike <mi...@topstexas.com>.
Ok.. you lost me. It is my domain but i know not of this challenge
response? What stupid thing have I done now.
Thanks ahead
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>I just had a ChoiceMail challenge tagged as spam by SA 2.64 with the
>following analysis (apologies in advance for line wrapping that may be
>inflicted by gmail):
>
>Content analysis details: (8.7 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
>---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> 0.7 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers
> 0.6 MSG_ID_NO_DOMAIN No domain part in Message-Id header
> 0.3 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
>-0.0 BAYES_44 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
> [score: 0.4459]
> 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 2.9 FAKED_HOTMAIL_DAV X-Originating-Email header does not match From
> 1.0 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format
> 0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below
> 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook
>
>I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with the SA rule
>definitions, just providing a heads-up that ChoiceMail may be doing
>something stupid. (Independent of whether it's stupid to filter spam
>with challenge/response in the first place.)
>
>
>
--
Michael H. Collins Admiral, Penguinista Navy
http://linuxlink.com
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ / No HTML/RTF in email
x No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect for open standards
"If you are going through hell, keep going."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Re: SA 2.64 vs. ChoiceMail
Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
> (Independent of whether it's stupid to filter spam with
> challenge/response in the first place.)
I prove (to myself) that I'm a real person every time I delete a
challenge email. :-)
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/