ipv6 and whitelist_rcvd_from
the my spamassassin rule is as follow: whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] mx2.freebsd.org and here is the recieved header with spamassassin: Received: by pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr (Postfix, from userid 59) id 66A1D3ECD; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:00:05 +0900 (KST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=15.1 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, TVD_SPACE_RATIO autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Comment: DKIM? See http://www.google.com/search?btnIq=RFC+4871 Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DE43ECB for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:00:04 +0900 (KST) as you can see above, there is no whitelist result. it does not work anymore, since i enabled ipv6. what can i do for solving this matter? i'm using 3.2.3 under freebsd. -- You can start by acting like a man. LIKE A MAN! -- Vito Corleone, Chapter 1, page 36
Re: ipv6 and whitelist_rcvd_from
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: as you can see above, there is no whitelist result. it does not work anymore, since i enabled ipv6. what can i do for solving this matter? You can go back to using ipv4 or use another whitelist method such as whitelist_from_spf/dkim/dk/auth. Although unless you've got an ipv4 relay somewhere to delimit your network boundary you may have issues with those options as well. You may have to (if you must stick to ipv6 for your mail relay) rewrite the relay header (or insert another one) so it looks like an ipv4 relay. Support for ipv6 in SA goes as far as that it will for the most part not throw errors if it sees an ipv6 address where it wants an ipv4 address. There hasn't been any real work done on implementing ipv6 support since, AFAIK, none of the SA developers have any real need for it at present. It's something I've wanted to implement for a few years now but haven't had both the time and tuits to do it at the same time. Daryl
Re: ipv6 and whitelist_rcvd_from
hi, On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 03:22 -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: as you can see above, there is no whitelist result. it does not work anymore, since i enabled ipv6. what can i do for solving this matter? You can go back to using ipv4 or use another whitelist method such as whitelist_from_spf/dkim/dk/auth. Although unless you've got an ipv4 relay somewhere to delimit your network boundary you may have issues with those options as well. You may have to (if you must stick to ipv6 for your mail relay) rewrite the relay header (or insert another one) so it looks like an ipv4 relay. Support for ipv6 in SA goes as far as that it will for the most part not throw errors if it sees an ipv6 address where it wants an ipv4 address. There hasn't been any real work done on implementing ipv6 support since, AFAIK, none of the SA developers have any real need for it at present. It's something I've wanted to implement for a few years now but haven't had both the time and tuits to do it at the same time. thanks for quick reply, and i solved with whitelist_from instead whitelist_from_rcvd under ipv6 ;; respect, bh -- Never mind being a dance judge, do your job. Take a walk around the neighborhood and see everything is OK. -- Peter Clemenza, Chapter 1, page 20
googlepages.com abuse
I have recently starting seeing spams with URLS contining googlepages websites Currently I am scoring all googlepages.com link mails with 1.5 :-( How do you folks trap these mails , And how do we report abuse to google ( if they really bother ) Thanks Ram
Re: Skip SA checks for mails from SA list
Matt Kettler wrote: As an alternative, you can use whitelist_from_spf or whitelist_from_rcvd on the list's return-path. From there, you can configure shortcircuiting to bypass the rest of SA and bayes_ignore_from to prevent learning. Would this be OK whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin.apache.org read the doc. I think it should be whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] hermes.apache.org This is what is the rdns for the mail relay that is sending me mails from the list. Anand
Re: Skip SA checks for mails from SA list
K Anand wrote: Matt Kettler wrote: As an alternative, you can use whitelist_from_spf or whitelist_from_rcvd on the list's return-path. From there, you can configure shortcircuiting to bypass the rest of SA and bayes_ignore_from to prevent learning. Would this be OK whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin.apache.org read the doc. I think it should be whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] hermes.apache.org This is what is the rdns for the mail relay that is sending me mails from the list. I tried this but rule is not triggered...So something is wrong. Can anyone help ? Anand
Re: ipv6 and whitelist_rcvd_from
ah.. sorry.. the subject was wrong.. ipv6 and whitelist_rcvd_from === ipv6 and whitelist_from_rcvd respect, bh On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 17:27 +0900, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: hi, On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 03:22 -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: as you can see above, there is no whitelist result. it does not work anymore, since i enabled ipv6. what can i do for solving this matter? You can go back to using ipv4 or use another whitelist method such as whitelist_from_spf/dkim/dk/auth. Although unless you've got an ipv4 relay somewhere to delimit your network boundary you may have issues with those options as well. You may have to (if you must stick to ipv6 for your mail relay) rewrite the relay header (or insert another one) so it looks like an ipv4 relay. Support for ipv6 in SA goes as far as that it will for the most part not throw errors if it sees an ipv6 address where it wants an ipv4 address. There hasn't been any real work done on implementing ipv6 support since, AFAIK, none of the SA developers have any real need for it at present. It's something I've wanted to implement for a few years now but haven't had both the time and tuits to do it at the same time. thanks for quick reply, and i solved with whitelist_from instead whitelist_from_rcvd under ipv6 ;; respect, bh -- But his ultimate aim is to enter that society with a certain power since society doesn't really protect its members who do not have their own individual power. -- Michael Corleone, Chapter 25, page 363
Re: Skip SA checks for mails from SA list
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 14:58 +0530, K Anand wrote: K Anand wrote: Matt Kettler wrote: As an alternative, you can use whitelist_from_spf or whitelist_from_rcvd on the list's return-path. From there, you can configure shortcircuiting to bypass the rest of SA and bayes_ignore_from to prevent learning. Would this be OK whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin.apache.org read the doc. I think it should be whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] hermes.apache.org This is what is the rdns for the mail relay that is sending me mails from the list. I tried this but rule is not triggered...So something is wrong. Can anyone help ? in my case, the rule works fine. whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] hermes.apache.org here is the shot: Received: by pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr (Postfix, from userid 59) id E9FE13ECD; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:26:07 +0900 (KST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-37.7 required=15.1 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VERIFIED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Comment: DKIM? See http://www.google.com/search?btnIq=RFC+4871 Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.2]) by pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr (Postfix) with SMTP id A7E1F3ECB for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:25:58 +0900 (KST) respect, bh -- Did you do the job on Sollozzo? Both of them. Sure? I saw their brains. -- Tessio and Michael Corleone, Chapter 11, page 151
Re: URICountry not working - any clue?
hi, On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 04:56 -0800, SpankTheSpam wrote: Hi I have installed URICountry plugin along with p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.3 and amavisd-new-2.5.2,1 and have added few rules, and one to test it in my local.cf: [...] well, imho, its using is not fair to over the world. because there regarding spam country may/might be a little bit pure email users. we can use another way instead of the dangerous way. i would like to here some opinion about that.. respect, bh -- If by some misfortune an honest man like yourself made enemies they would become my enemies and then, believe me, they would fear you. Be my friend. I accept. -- Vito Corleone and Amerigo Bonasera, Chapter 1, page 32-33
Re: Skip SA checks for mails from SA list
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 14:58 +0530, K Anand wrote: K Anand wrote: Matt Kettler wrote: As an alternative, you can use whitelist_from_spf or whitelist_from_rcvd on the list's return-path. From there, you can configure shortcircuiting to bypass the rest of SA and bayes_ignore_from to prevent learning. Would this be OK whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin.apache.org read the doc. I think it should be whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] hermes.apache.org This is what is the rdns for the mail relay that is sending me mails from the list. I tried this but rule is not triggered...So something is wrong. Can anyone help ? in my case, the rule works fine. whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] hermes.apache.org here is the shot: Received: by pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr (Postfix, from userid 59) id E9FE13ECD; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:26:07 +0900 (KST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-37.7 required=15.1 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VERIFIED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Comment: DKIM? See http://www.google.com/search?btnIq=RFC+4871 Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.2]) by pinus.izb.knu.ac.kr (Postfix) with SMTP id A7E1F3ECB for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:25:58 +0900 (KST) This is what I get Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 32150 invoked by uid 89); 13 Nov 2007 09:48:01 - Received: by simscan 1.2.0 ppid: 32094, pid: 32122, t: 4.4853s scanners: attach: 1.2.0 clamav: 0.90/m:42 spam: 3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on sail-steel.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.1 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by sail-steel.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2007 09:47:57 - Received-SPF: pass (sail-steel.com: SPF record at spamassassin.apache.org designates 140.211.11.2 as permitted sender) I think the problem has something to do with this line : Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) Anand
RE: googlepages.com abuse
-Original Message- From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:33 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: googlepages.com abuse I have recently starting seeing spams with URLS containing Google pages websites Currently I am scoring all googlepages.com link mails with 1.5 :-( How do you folks trap these mails , And how do we report abuse to google ( if they really bother ) You can't. Google ignores complaints, and email to @googlepages.com will bounce in 5 days due to their refusal to even follow the RFC's and have a server to receive email. Change the score to 10 and don't look back. Let their users have their own isolated piece of the spam infected world. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO Office: 561-999-5000 x 1259 Direct: 561-939-7259 Real time security alerts: http://www.secnap.com/news _ This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(tm). For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com _
Re: Is it possible to handle different spamfilters from one .mailfilter
On 12.11.07 18:13, Wolfgang Uhr wrote: I've a small problem. We have installed courier mta on our server and we start sa using the command xfilter /usr/bin/spamassassin resp. xfilter /usr/bin/spamc where do you run that from? The procmailrc/mailfilter? If we do this the folder /.spamassassin/ will be created in the first time und will be used in the next calls. Now I want to use two different spamfilters for two different users. Is there any parameter to tell spamassassin to use an other folder to store the bayes filter? spamassassin uses preferences of calling user (or of the user specified by '-u' flag). Just call SA from different users (or with different -u flags) and it will be done. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Posli tento mail 100 svojim znamim - nech vidia aky si idiot Send this email to 100 your friends - let them see what an idiot you are
Re: help
On 12.11.07 11:27, Kim Hurlbutt wrote: Wondering if you can point me in the right direction on how to make our spam scores lower. How can I get information on how to make edits to our pages to lower our scores? We currently use Kintera to send our email newsletters. Please help!! Score Details: pts rule name description -- -- 0.2 HTML_FONT_FACE_ODD BODY: HTML font face is not a commonly used face 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.3 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font 0.6 HTML_TABLE_THICK_BORD BODY: HTML table has thick border 0.7 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts 0.7 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML 0.4 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers get normal, correct SW for those newsletters. Nearly all those flags mean there's something sick in Kintera. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. - Have you got anything without Spam in it? - Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.
Re: Skip SA checks for mails from SA list
On 13.11.07 15:52, K Anand wrote: This is what I get [...] I think the problem has something to do with this line : Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) configure your smtp server to add DNS data to Received: line. *list_from_rcvd doesn't work without list (although it could be worth adding IP or CIDR check in such cases) -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Linux - It's now safe to turn on your computer. Linux - Teraz mozete pocitac bez obav zapnut.
Re: URICountry not working - any clue?
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: hi, On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 04:56 -0800, SpankTheSpam wrote: Hi I have installed URICountry plugin along with p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.3 and amavisd-new-2.5.2,1 and have added few rules, and one to test it in my local.cf: [...] well, imho, its using is not fair to over the world. because there regarding spam country may/might be a little bit pure email users. we can use another way instead of the dangerous way. i would like to here some opinion about that.. Uricountry, relaycountry, etc are all quite useful, but I agree their use must be reasonably tempered. I strongly disagree with using either of these systems to assign more than half your spam threshold to any message. Country of origin or hosting site alone is not a very good sole criteria for declaring a message to be spam. However, in my case I do receive a few nonspam messages from Korea each year, like this message for example, and all are quite clearly nonspam and technical in nature... I also receive around a thousand spam messages that were sent from infected hosts in Korea each year (mostly controlled by American spammers). As a result, I assign 1.5 points (of a 5.0 threshold) to messages delivered to my network from Korea. This helps catch some of the more evasive spam, but I also have yet to have it cause a single false positive on a nonspam message. (Your message would have totaled 1.5/5.0 if it was sent directly, as it caught no other positive scoring rules) This is even more true for web hosting. There's no reason an american company can't have a website hosted overseas. So many of their products are made there, so why shouldn't the websites be hosted there? Unfortunately, like any rule, there's a lot of admins out there who think in absolutes, and assign absurd scores to rules. This is, of course, highly contrary to the whole design of SpamAssassin, which exists because Justin got tired of single-criteria decisions for spam causing false positives. I guess there's a human tendency to see a high probability and treat that as proof positive. (We all like to over-simplify things). I guess I failed to point out to spankthespam that using a 54 point score on a rule is quite unwise.
Re: URICountry not working - any clue?
Matt Kettler-3 wrote: Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: hi, On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 04:56 -0800, SpankTheSpam wrote: Hi I have installed URICountry plugin along with p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.3 and amavisd-new-2.5.2,1 and have added few rules, and one to test it in my local.cf: [...] well, imho, its using is not fair to over the world. because there regarding spam country may/might be a little bit pure email users. we can use another way instead of the dangerous way. i would like to here some opinion about that.. Uricountry, relaycountry, etc are all quite useful, but I agree their use must be reasonably tempered. I strongly disagree with using either of these systems to assign more than half your spam threshold to any message. Country of origin or hosting site alone is not a very good sole criteria for declaring a message to be spam. However, in my case I do receive a few nonspam messages from Korea each year, like this message for example, and all are quite clearly nonspam and technical in nature... I also receive around a thousand spam messages that were sent from infected hosts in Korea each year (mostly controlled by American spammers). As a result, I assign 1.5 points (of a 5.0 threshold) to messages delivered to my network from Korea. This helps catch some of the more evasive spam, but I also have yet to have it cause a single false positive on a nonspam message. (Your message would have totaled 1.5/5.0 if it was sent directly, as it caught no other positive scoring rules) This is even more true for web hosting. There's no reason an american company can't have a website hosted overseas. So many of their products are made there, so why shouldn't the websites be hosted there? Unfortunately, like any rule, there's a lot of admins out there who think in absolutes, and assign absurd scores to rules. This is, of course, highly contrary to the whole design of SpamAssassin, which exists because Justin got tired of single-criteria decisions for spam causing false positives. I guess there's a human tendency to see a high probability and treat that as proof positive. (We all like to over-simplify things). I guess I failed to point out to spankthespam that using a 54 point score on a rule is quite unwise. Oh, no, dont worry, I am not those people ;) I set it that high only for testing purposes to be absolute sure that the plugin and the rule is working, so I dont have to count all the points and wonder if my -1 was actually taken or not. Beside the fact, I am using those two (relay country and uri country) to add negative points for certain countries (like Poland where most of our customers reside) rather than to add for all other world. But the plugins are working now, it seems that it needs amavisd restart to get new plugins, even if amavisd is calling spamassassin each time the message comes in. Thanks a lot for your help. P.S. Is there any plugin and/or rule that could help me checking if the sender and recipient addressess were added in RFC - way, that is in brackets and add some points if not? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/URICountry-not-working---any-clue--tf4785757.html#a13730770 Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: URICountry not working - any clue?
hi, On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 08:04 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: hi, On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 04:56 -0800, SpankTheSpam wrote: Hi I have installed URICountry plugin along with p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.3 and amavisd-new-2.5.2,1 and have added few rules, and one to test it in my local.cf: [...] well, imho, its using is not fair to over the world. because there regarding spam country may/might be a little bit pure email users. we can use another way instead of the dangerous way. i would like to here some opinion about that.. Uricountry, relaycountry, etc are all quite useful, but I agree their use must be reasonably tempered. I strongly disagree with using either of these systems to assign more than half your spam threshold to any message. Country of origin or hosting site alone is not a very good sole criteria for declaring a message to be spam. However, in my case I do receive a few nonspam messages from Korea each year, like this message for example, and all are quite clearly nonspam and technical in nature... I also receive around a thousand spam messages that were sent from infected hosts in Korea each year (mostly controlled by American spammers). As a result, I assign 1.5 points (of a 5.0 threshold) to messages delivered to my network from Korea. This helps catch some of the more evasive spam, but I also have yet to have it cause a single false positive on a nonspam message. (Your message would have totaled 1.5/5.0 if it was sent directly, as it caught no other positive scoring rules) This is even more true for web hosting. There's no reason an american company can't have a website hosted overseas. So many of their products are made there, so why shouldn't the websites be hosted there? Unfortunately, like any rule, there's a lot of admins out there who think in absolutes, and assign absurd scores to rules. This is, of course, highly contrary to the whole design of SpamAssassin, which exists because Justin got tired of single-criteria decisions for spam causing false positives. I guess there's a human tendency to see a high probability and treat that as proof positive. (We all like to over-simplify things). I guess I failed to point out to spankthespam that using a 54 point score on a rule is quite unwise. your opinion is resonable, thanks! respect, bh -- Why do they bother your father with business on a day like this? Because they know that by tradition no Sicilian can refuse a request on his daughter's wedding day. -- Kay Adams and Michael Corleone, Chapter 1, page 26-27
RE: URICountry not working - any clue?
SpankTheSpam wrote: But the plugins are working now, it seems that it needs amavisd restart to get new plugins, even if amavisd is calling spamassassin each time the message comes in. Amavisd does not call SpamAssassin for each message. Amavisd initializes the SpamAssassin libraries when it starts and then uses those libraries to check each message. This is basically the same as the way spamd works. Any time you make a change to rules or configuration files, you will need to restart Amavisd. -- Bowie
US Senate as bad internet citizens???
Well, I recently called my Senator to ask him to support enhanced network neutrality legislation (since he worked on the 1998 Telecommunications Bill). I received his reply 2 days later by email. Ok. I found that there were some misconceptions he had about the topic on a purely technical basis, and decided to reply to him and set him straight (or more appropriately, set the staffer straight that had written the response on his behalf). Well... The original message was received at Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:04:21 -0500 (EST) from localhost [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (reason: 550 5.1.1 User unknown) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to bridgeheadpsq.senate.gov.: DATA 550 5.1.1 User unknown 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... User unknown 503 5.5.2 Need Rcpt command. So I'm wondering... if they send emails out that can't be replied to... doesn't that correspond to the very definition of a spammer? Aren't they concealing their identity? Sigh. Oh, well. I knew it was asking too much to have meaningful legislation on net neutrality (or digital rights, or copyright reform, etc) come from Washington D.C. Perhaps in 50 years they'll finally have a handle on it. But I dared to hope... -Philip
Re: US Senate as bad internet citizens???
At 02:22 PM 11/13/2007, Philip Prindeville wrote: So I'm wondering... if they send emails out that can't be replied to... doesn't that correspond to the very definition of a spammer? Aren't they concealing their identity? Sigh. I just had one of those from my bank. I asked a question, they answered, I replied and it bounced (domain doesn't exist). I went online and said I'd think they could at least get their domain right. BTW, one thing I found out is checks (at least from this bank) expire after 6 months but they'll still cash them at any time in the future and we're responsible for covering the funds. I wonder what part of expire they don't understand. Time to run our business checks through the printer to put a void after... notice on them. -- Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc. www.interstellar.com tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886 Skype: jerrydurand
Re: help
As a heads up, more people will read your message if you make your Subject line more insightful. Ironically, I contacted Kintera last Spring pointing out that I wasn't getting messages from one of their customers because they were sending malformed messages that pegged the spam-o-meter (in particular, they were sending broken Date: lines). Didn't hear back. Apparently, they've never heard of Spam, or have no interest in differentiating themselves from less-legitimate content. Perhaps it's a marketing strategy to sell you more products and services to complement the ineffectual ones you're now using. ;-) -Philip Kim Hurlbutt wrote: Wondering if you can point me in the right direction on how to make our spam scores lower. How can I get information on how to make edits to our pages to lower our scores? We currently use Kintera to send our email newsletters. Please help!! Thanks An example of our spam score: Your spam score is: 2.9 points Score Details: pts rule name description -- -- 0.2 HTML_FONT_FACE_ODD BODY: HTML font face is not a commonly used face 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.3 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font 0.6 HTML_TABLE_THICK_BORD BODY: HTML table has thick border 0.7 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts 0.7 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML 0.4 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com http://yahoo.com/ does not match 'Received' headers Kim Hurlbutt Development Proctor Academy 603.735.6218 www.proctoracademy.org http://www.proctoracademy.org
Re: googlepages.com abuse
On Nov 13, 2007 3:32 AM, Michael Scheidell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you folks trap these mails , And how do we report abuse to google ( if they really bother ) You can't. Google ignores complaints, and email to @googlepages.com will bounce in 5 days due to their refusal to even follow the RFC's and have a server to receive email. Er, which RFC are you claiming requires them to have a server to receive mail? In any case I inquired of an acquaintance who works at Google and got this response to the question of how do we report abuse: Web link: http://www.google.com/support/pages/bin/request.py with links there for spam, phishing, scumware, etc. Email links get too heavily spammed so the one contact address which has leaked gets a push-back mail to use the web form. All complaints are acted upon quickly but no individual replies are sent. Quickly here is in practice within one business day (but I don't believe that there's a formal commitment to this). Any evidence that a complaint has been ignored would be interesting to see; ultimately, is the page still up? is the check.
Re: Skip SA checks for mails from SA list
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 13.11.07 15:52, K Anand wrote: Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) configure your smtp server to add DNS data to Received: line. *list_from_rcvd doesn't work without list (although it could be worth adding IP or CIDR check in such cases) I use qmail. Do I have to do anything extra to get it to put this info ? Anand
Re: googlepages.com abuse
At 19:31 13-11-2007, Bart Schaefer wrote: Er, which RFC are you claiming requires them to have a server to receive mail? It's a BCP quoted by SMTP folks to annoy Web-enabled people. :-) Regards, -sm
Re: Skip SA checks for mails from SA list
hi, On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:43 +0530, K Anand wrote: Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 13.11.07 15:52, K Anand wrote: Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) configure your smtp server to add DNS data to Received: line. *list_from_rcvd doesn't work without list (although it could be worth adding IP or CIDR check in such cases) I use qmail. Do I have to do anything extra to get it to put this info ? you just tell qmail to do rDNS. it is very easy. there is no problem. respect, bh -- As the CONSIGLIERE, you agree that it's dangerous to the Don and our Family to let Sollozzo live? Yes. -- Michael Corleone and Tom Hagen, Chapter 11, page 145
