On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Michael Bimmler <[email protected]> wrote: > No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I > found a legacy entry in the "Always accept posts from these > non-members" filter for [email protected]... Well, I removed that > line now, as Anthere is not using a @wikimedia.org address anymore.
I realize we shouldn't be white-listing by domain name, but if a garden variety spam-bot was able to convincingly spoof the return address, imagine the confusion a real person could have caused. > X-Spam-Score: 7.9 (+++++++) > X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system > "lily.knams.wikimedia.org", has > identified this incoming email as possible spam. If you have any > questions, see the administrator of that system for details. > Content analysis details: (7.9 points, 4.0 required) > pts rule name description > ---- ---------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL > [201.244.70.114 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] > 0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server > [201.244.70.114 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] > 1.5 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL > blocklist > [URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn] > 1.1 SORTED_RECIPS Recipient list is sorted by address > 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% > [score: 0.4995] > 1.5 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist > [URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn] > 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with > no rDNS I think David Gerard said human postings generally do not score above 2.0 unless their vocabulary suggests a background in SEO, then it's higher. —C.W. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
