On 12/10/2012 11:02 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/10/2012 4:58 PM, Axb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:48 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/10/2012 4:44 PM, Axb wrote:
Why isn't Zmailer dev requested to fix it?
I don't even know what zmailer is ;-)
Lowering our defenses for software which hardly anybody uses anymore
and which hasn't seen a release since 2007?
(ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/unix/mail/zmailer/src/)
I didn't consider it an issue since I couldn't find any hits with the
rules in my corpora. Do you ever have it fire? Otherwise, it's a rule
that has an S/O of 0 hitting only on Hams.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20121210-r1419267-n/TAB_IN_FROM/detail
hitting 18% of our spam corpus.
Wonder what the ham is in Darxus' corpus.....
Wow, to go from 0 on my end checking a corpora of millions of messages
to yours with an 18% hit. Possible something on your end is
reformatting things to add it?
Any rhyme or reason you can find?
Although these messages are passed thru SA, the subject is not
modified/tagged. Nothing modifies the "From" header unless procmail has
developed a new habit, although then it would have to hit way more of my
fraud corpus.
Also, the two corpus with the most hits: "foo" amd "sa-users" are very
similar and have many traits in common.
Also I don't know that Darxus had the issue. This was a complaint from
Apache infrastructure.
