Hi,
Andy Smith wrote:
> [...] I argue that at present it
> isn't a good idea to just reject all DKIM failures like OP's mailbox
> provider appears to be doing.
Just for the records:
The mails in question don't get rejected but rather marked as spam
and then get delivered.
The currently best
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 02:16:07AM +, Tim Woodall wrote:
> And some dkim seems setup with the intention that it should not be used
> for mailinglusts:
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=dow.land;
> s=20210720;
>
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> --- sninp ---
>
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
> smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
> dkim=fail
On 07/03/2024 21:04, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
--- sninp ---
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
dkim=fail
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> --- sninp ---
>
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
> smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
> dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed"
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Hi all,
> I believe, I found the reason, why mails are marked as spam and others not.
>
> All spam mails shjow this entry in the header:
>
> --- sninp ---
>
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
>
Hi all,
I believe, I found the reason, why mails are marked as spam and others not.
All spam mails shjow this entry in the header:
--- sninp ---
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu;
Hans wrote:
> HI Brad,
>
> I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly
> mail was marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail
> again is marked as spam.
>
> We know, there is nothing unusual with your mail, but it is again
> marked as spam. Even, when
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:36:25 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly
>mail was marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail
>again is marked as spam.
Spam/ham training is not, IME, a single shot affair. However, as
HI Brad,
I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly mail was
marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail again is marked
as spam.
We know, there is nothing unusual with your mail, but it is again marked as
spam. Even, when I explicity marked your
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 13:53:49 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>It should be well trained
Spam training is an ongoing process
>But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to
>another, although I had changed nothing.
because the spam changes. What's coming now is
Hans (12024-03-06):
> I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained
> and
> almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
Hi.
It is probably not the reason for you problem now, but it is important
to note that in the “several years” since your spam
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> Re: *SPAM* Re: Spam from the list?
> In-Reply-To: <20240306112253.55e25...@earth.stargate.org.uk>
referring the mail
> > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:22:53 +
> > From: Brad Rogers
> > Message-ID: <20240306112253.55e25...@earth.stargate
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Hi Brad,
>
> I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained
> and
> almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
>
> But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to
>
Hi Brad,
I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained and
almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to another,
although I had changed nothing.
And weired: It happened only
Hans wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > you perhaps subscribed to one of the "Resent-*" lists ?
> >
> Not as far as I know.
>
> > > Subject: *SPAM* Bug#1065537: ITP: bleak-retry-connector --
> > > Connector for Bleak Clients that handles transient connection
> > > failures
> >
> > The mark
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 11:19:27 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>Does one see any reason, why this is considered as spam???
Further to what Thomas says; You haven't told your spam filtering that
it's ham. If you don't train your spam filters, it's never going to get
any better at detecting what
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> I changed nothing and suddenly many mails from debian-user
> (but not all, only some) are recognized as spam.
But the one you posted here did not come from debian-user.
So maybe what changed is an inadverted subscription to one of
debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
Am Mittwoch, 6. März 2024, 12:10:57 CET schrieb Dan Ritter:
> >
> > X-Spam-Flag: YES
> >
> > X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
>
> What sets these two headers?
>
I do not know. So I asked on this list.
What I believe is, that the X-Spam-Flag: YES is set somehow on the way and as
spamassin is looking at
Hi Thomas,
> you perhaps subscribed to one of the "Resent-*" lists ?
>
Not as far as I know.
> > Subject: *SPAM* Bug#1065537: ITP: bleak-retry-connector --
> > Connector for Bleak Clients that handles transient connection failures
>
> The mark "*SPAM*" does not appear in the
Hans wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
> spam than before. Something must have changed.
>
> I examined the header of the mails, but did not see any unusual.
>
> Below I send the header of an example of such a mail, maybe you
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
> spam than before.
> [...]
> Below I send the header of an example of such a mail, maybe you can see the
> reason?
The message does not look like it came to you via debian-user:
> X-Original-To:
Hi folks,
during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
spam than before. Something must have changed.
I examined the header of the mails, but did not see any unusual.
Below I send the header of an example of such a mail, maybe you can see the
reason?
On my
23 matches
Mail list logo
