Hello to all users, contributors and Committers!
The Travel Assistance Committee (TAC) are pleased to announce that
travel assistance applications for Community over Code EU 2024 are now
open!
We will be supporting Community over Code EU, Bratislava, Slovakia,
June 3th - 5th, 2024.
TAC exists
,
too? ...We DO need Dovecot, it's just not authenticating the imap
connections properly and I just don't have time right now to focus on it.
Parking the damned spam somehow is a great help. And, this is perhaps
BETTER than gettting the subject line rewrite working again because it'll
enoted directive
was working fine as I was trying to rebuild things - namely:
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
But at some point as I made some edits, SA continues to work, and
honors everything else in the file so far as I have noted so far -
such as required hits, which is directly a
On 2023-03-01 at 02:52:10 UTC-0500 (Wed, 1 Mar 2023 08:52:10 +0100)
David Bürgin
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole:
If your mailstore uses mbox or Maildir, the unmaintained antique
software
named "procmail" could be used for delivery. As an antique myself, I
use it,
but I cannot in good
Bill Cole:
> If your mailstore uses mbox or Maildir, the unmaintained antique software
> named "procmail" could be used for delivery. As an antique myself, I use it,
> but I cannot in good conscience recommend anyone else adopt it de novo.
It looks like procmail is maintained again, by the
is ultimately that the above denoted directive
was working fine as I was trying to rebuild things - namely:
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
But at some point as I made some edits, SA continues to work, and
honors everything else in the file so far as I have noted so far -
such as required hits
and EVERYTHING in /! ... Good advice, now that disk
space is dirt cheap!)
The reason for posting is ultimately that the above denoted directive was
working fine as I was trying to rebuild things - namely:
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
But at some point as I made some edits, SA continues to work
On 11/17/22 9:00 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
Easier said than done.
It's actually quite easy to do. But most people don't want to do what I
think should be done.
IMHO, the email list itself is a 1st class / proper entity that you are
emailing or reading email from. -- I'm not emailing Bill or
. mail arriving with 8-bit encoding
may cause a re-encode.
Obviously, any list that adds tags to Subject, munges From, forces or deletes
Reply-To, or reflows text (rare, but it happens...) will clobber DKIM. Some
sites "oversign" headers that lists should be adding (the whole List-* zoo)
gt; complaining about this?
>
>> in addition to cluttering the Subject if
>> misclassified mail is part of a conversation.
>
> So the alternative is adding a header and move it to the spam folder
> automatically on the basis of the header?
Yeah, you CAN do that.
I just r
' users that the message is possible spam,
>> they can decide to move such emails automatically to a spam folder by
>> enabling a sieve rule.
>> What would be an alternative method to keep such functionality without
>> altering the subject?
>
> If SA sees the message and class
On 2022-11-16 at 08:01:12 UTC-0500 (Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:01:12 -0700)
Grant Taylor via users
is rumored to have said:
> Or said another way, DKIM is only supposed to be a /positive/ /assertion/ if
> / when a DKIM signature validation passes. DKIM is supposed to not be
> negative.
That's
On 11/16/22 4:46 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Can you expand on that?
I'll try.
My understanding is that few MUAs test DKIM signatures /client/ /side/.
-- The only exception that I'm aware of is that there was a Thunderbird
add-on that would test DKIM signatures /client/ /side/. Almost all DKIM
Greg Troxel writes:
> I did just get a bounce message in reply to a message I sent here,
> complaining that my message failed DKIM (maybe the list munged it) and
> SPF (ok; the list is not in general authorized to send mail from my
> domain) and therefore was being rejected (but I do not
folder/whatever.
>> What would be an alternative method to keep such functionality
>> without altering the subject?
>
> Adding headers is the most common thing that I see. Then let the
> email client decide what action, if any, to take based on that
> header's contents.
me too
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:46 PM Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> If SA sees the message and classifies it as spam, it normally adds (from
> an
> example)
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=8.2 required=5.0
> tests=BAYES_50=0.8,DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
>
> It should be trivial
be an alternative method to keep such functionality without
altering the subject?
If SA sees the message and classifies it as spam, it normally adds (from an
example)
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=8.2 required=5.0
tests=BAYES_50=0.8,DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
It should
whatever text you want in the wrapper message. This is an exercise left
up to the reader. ;-)
What would be an alternative method to keep such functionality without
altering the subject?
Adding headers is the most common thing that I see. Then let the email
client decide what action, if any
> You might want to point out to them that rewrite_header breaks any DKIM
> signature on mail,
Hmmm, good point, not really thought about this even. Are email clients
complaining about this?
> in addition to cluttering the Subject if
> misclassified mail is part of a conve
On 2022-11-15 at 05:04:08 UTC-0500 (Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:04:08 +)
Marc
is rumored to have said:
> I am having repeated occurances of ***SPAM*** in the subject, maybe it is
> good to stop adding ***SPAM*** if there are already 10 in the subject?
That's an entirely local choice, cont
Apache SpamAssassin it's both an API and a program. In my installation, I
do not use it to do any subject modifications and I use a milter called
mime defang to do that using my own logic.
You can also configure spam d/Spam seed not to modify the subject.
If you would like similar headings
>
> When a *user* replies it's not at the beginning
> it's "Re: **spam**"
:) Indeed, and in other languages it is even different, but I think developers
get the point ;)
> >> spamassassin add multiple times '**spam**' to the subject.
> >>
> >> your spamassassin only adds it one time
> >
> > Yes I know, and lazy users do not remove it in replies, that is how
> you get multiple occurances
>
> than it's "
> >>
> >> multiple signs of spam leading to marking a message as spam
> >
> > This is not relevant for the discussion on whether or not to have
> spamassassin add multiple times '**spam**' to the subject.
>
> your spamassassin only adds it one time
Y
>
> Am 15.11.22 um 11:48 schrieb Marc:
> >>
> >> and i told you that it's useful when a message already passed
> multiple
> >> hops which flagged it as spam to outright reject it
> >>
> >> /^Subject: .*\*\*\*\*\*spam\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*sp
>
> and i told you that it's useful when a message already passed multiple
> hops which flagged it as spam to outright reject it
>
> /^Subject: .*\*\*\*\*\*spam\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*spam\*\*\*\*\*/ REJECT
> Administrative Prohibition (Subject)
A message is either spam or
> >
> > I am having repeated occurances of ***SPAM*** in the subject, maybe it
> is good to stop adding ***SPAM*** if there are already 10 in the
> subject?
>
> ask the sending admin why in the world he still continues to blow out
> that crap instead trash it
&g
I am having repeated occurances of ***SPAM*** in the subject, maybe it is good
to stop adding ***SPAM*** if there are already 10 in the subject?
Good question... probably an interesting new feature for SA: dividing and
deal with attached emails (and nested emails that look like a chat) in a one by
one basis...
Pete.
>On Tuesday, April 26, 2022, 02:36:25 PM GMT+2, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>Hello,
>is it possible to match
Hello,
is it possible to match message headers in rfc822 atttachments?
from what I know, "header" rules only apply to mail headers and mimeheader
only apply to mime headers.
body and rawbody afaik only search in bodies of messages or included
messages.
I have asked some time ago but no
0-\x8F]|\xE2\x98[\xB9-\xBB]/
However, if you don't expect to get any legitimate mail with Asian
languages in the subject, you can probably get away with including all
4-byte UTF-8. Those code points are dominated by CJK, symbols, emojis
and dead languages.
/[\xF0-\xF7][\x80-\xBF]{3}|\xE2\x98[\xB9-\xBB]/
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 09:53:36AM +0200, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>
> Can someone explain why SA cannot support this type of syntax, or what would
> be needed to get it supported? IMHO it makes it a lot easier for end-users
> to understand a rule, and for rule developers to write or even contribute
>
On 20-05-2021 18:19, RW wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 11:42:59 -0400
Clive Jacques wrote:
Hi,
I've been using SA a long time. Lately, I'm getting more and more
spam with emoticons in the subject line. I'd say about 90% of my
emails with emoticons in the subject are spam. I'd like to create
On 2021-05-20 22:33, Clive Jacques wrote:
Here is a good example of such an email (attached, stripped of
identifying info).
This attachment is suspicious because its type doesn't match the type
declared in the message. If you do not trust the sender, you shouldn't
open it in the browser
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:35:21 -0400
Jared Hall wrote:
> Clive Jacques wrote:
> > # Local Rule for Emoticons in subject
> > subject EMOTICON_IN_SUBJECT Subject =~ /\p{Emoticons}/
>
> The following regex will detect a good amount of Emojis:
>
> |/[\u{1
Clive Jacques wrote:
Hi,
I've been using SA a long time. Lately, I'm getting more and more
spam with emoticons in the subject line. I'd say about 90% of my
emails with emoticons in the subject are spam. I'd like to create a
local rule which scores email with emoticons in the subject. I
That's fine - I'm not saying all email containing emojis in the subject (or
elsewhere) *is *spam - just that it's uncommon and right now, about 90% of
the time it is *for me*. I just want to score it as part of the greater
constellation of factors (just like DKIM, SPF etc.).
On Thu, May 20, 2021
On 2021-05-20 at 13:44:43 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 May 2021 18:44:43 +0100)
RW
is rumored to have said:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:30:03 +0100
RW wrote:
Try this:
header EMOTICON_IN_SUBJECT Subject =~
/\xF0\x9F(?:\x98[\x80-\xFF]|\x99[\x00-x8F])/
Actually that's only the original block
On Thu, 20 May 2021 19:26:30 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:44:43 +0100
> RW wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:30:03 +0100
> > RW wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Try this:
> > >
> > >
> > > header EMOTICON_I
On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:44:43 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:30:03 +0100
> RW wrote:
>
>
> > Try this:
> >
> >
> > header EMOTICON_IN_SUBJECT Subject =~
> > /\xF0\x9F(?:\x98[\x80-\xFF]|\x99[\x00-x8F])/
> >
>
> Actually that
On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:30:03 +0100
RW wrote:
> Try this:
>
>
> header EMOTICON_IN_SUBJECT Subject =~
> /\xF0\x9F(?:\x98[\x80-\xFF]|\x99[\x00-x8F])/
>
Actually that's only the original block, but it probably works most of
the time
On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:34:54 +0200
Bert Van de Poel wrote:
> We've started getting lots of spam with emoji in the subject too the
> past few weeks, so I've looked into this as well. As mentioned by RW,
> you would need to create some kind of UTF8 regex header Subject rule.
> As
On Thu, 2021-05-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
> We've started getting lots of spam with emoji in the subject too the
> past few weeks, so I've looked into this as well. As mentioned by RW,
> you would need to create some kind of UTF8 regex header Subject rule. As
>
We've started getting lots of spam with emoji in the subject too the
past few weeks, so I've looked into this as well. As mentioned by RW,
you would need to create some kind of UTF8 regex header Subject rule. As
I'm not too excited about writing such a regex, it's way at the bottom
of my todo
On Thu, 20 May 2021 11:42:59 -0400
Clive Jacques wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been using SA a long time. Lately, I'm getting more and more
> spam with emoticons in the subject line. I'd say about 90% of my
> emails with emoticons in the subject are spam. I'd like to create a
>
Hi,
I've been using SA a long time. Lately, I'm getting more and more spam
with emoticons in the subject line. I'd say about 90% of my emails with
emoticons in the subject are spam. I'd like to create a local rule which
scores email with emoticons in the subject. I saw a previous discussion
:
> I'm noticing a fair amount of spam getting through using letters in the
> subject line that are outside the standard set of ASCII characters in an
> effort to bypass spam filters. For example, instead of a capital "R",
> there will be a letter that closely approximates a capi
I'm noticing a fair amount of spam getting through using letters in the
subject line that are outside the standard set of ASCII characters in an
effort to bypass spam filters. For example, instead of a capital "R",
there will be a letter that closely approximates a capital "R
to the subject by
default (if enabled). This just allows customization of that behavior.
Assuming that the scan itself adds the headers. I was under the
impression that amavisd adds its own headers.
There's also this rather vague remark in the documentation:
"To be able to use this fe
;
>> No, it's rewriting the message headers before passing the message
>> back to the MTA. It's already adding a [SPAM] tag to the subject by
>> default (if enabled). This just allows customization of that behavior.
>
> Assuming that the scan itself adds the headers. I was
> >
> > Is there some special status/command that spamd returns to the
> > milter for this kind of modification? If so the milters may need to
> > be recoded to implement it.
>
> No, it's rewriting the message headers before passing the message
> back to the
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, Dave Funk wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:23:30PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
I'm pretty sure SA only allows setting the subject tag by language, not
based on rule hits.
Starting from
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:23:30PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
I'm pretty sure SA only allows setting the subject tag by language, not
based on rule hits.
Starting from 3.4.3 you can add a prefix to the email
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:23:30PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
I'm pretty sure SA only allows setting the subject tag by language, not
based on rule hits.
Starting from 3.4.3 you can add a prefix to the email subject like that:
header FROM_ME
do it within only 1 rule, as well as modify the subject.
> >
> > What I don't want is a BCC sent for every messages which is scored a 10,
> > but only the specific rule.
> >
> > Is there a way for me to accomplish this set of actions?
>
> You can't BCC the message
On 4 Jan 2021, at 20:49, Joey J wrote:
Thanks for the follow up.
I understand what you are saying.
This is SA within ProxMox Mail gateway, I added my custom rule via SA
which
is working, just this additional function.
So this is really a question for Proxmox experts. There seems to be a
nderstanding things correctly, there is a way for me to BCC spam
> > messages which lets say score 10 and send a BCC to an email address, but
> > I'm trying to do it within only 1 rule, as well as modify the subject.
> >
> > What I don't want is a BCC sent for every message
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021, Joey J wrote:
If I'm understanding things correctly, there is a way for me to BCC spam
messages which lets say score 10 and send a BCC to an email address, but
I'm trying to do it within only 1 rule, as well as modify the subject.
What I don't want is a BCC sent for every
Hello All,
If I'm understanding things correctly, there is a way for me to BCC spam
messages which lets say score 10 and send a BCC to an email address, but
I'm trying to do it within only 1 rule, as well as modify the subject.
What I don't want is a BCC sent for every messages which is scored
How can I mark emails as being spam originating from an ip range owned
by xserver.ua?
% Abuse contact for '176.103.48.0 - 176.103.63.255' is
'ab...@xserver.ua'
inetnum:176.103.48.0 - 176.103.63.255
netname:XServer-IP-Network-6
country:UA
org:
, $min) = @_;
the subject is not always included as first line of body (as expected), but
only in 50% of calls (aprox.)
In SA 3.4.1 it works ok.
any idea of why?
(I have asked as well to dev list)
Thanks.-Pedreter
Hi!
In SA 3.4.2 I have noticed a slight score difference between consecutive SA
executions.
Digging out, i have discovered that in plugin methods that use $body from the
third argument, like in this example:
sub pdf_is_empty_body { my ($self, $pms, $body, $min) = @_;
the subject
Hi,
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPA
On 9/6/19 4:16 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
>>>>> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and
>>>>> Mailman3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Occasionally, SpamAssass
On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
For example, I'm looking at an e
On 9/6/19 12:06 PM, David Galloway wrote:
>
> On 9/6/19 12:01 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
>>>
>>> Oc
On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
> On 06/09/19 17:45, David Galloway wrote:
>
>> For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPAM 5.4 *" in
>> the subject but "X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0"
>
> since w
On 06/09/19 19:36, Bill Cole wrote:
Since pretty much forever, IF it is told to do so...
See the documentation of 'rewrite_header' in 'perldoc
Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf'
Thanks for pointing that out, I never realized template tags could be
used on the subject rewriting too.
I guess my
On 6 Sep 2019, at 12:35, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
On 06/09/19 17:45, David Galloway wrote:
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPAM 5.4 *"
in
the subject but "X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0"
Hi,
since when does SpamAssassin al
On 06/09/19 17:45, David Galloway wrote:
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPAM 5.4 *" in
the subject but "X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0"
Hi,
since when does SpamAssassin also writes the scores in the subject? It's
a cool feature th
On 9/6/19 12:01 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
>>
>> Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
>&
On 9/6/2019 11:45 AM, David Galloway wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
>
> Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
> higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
&g
On 06.09.19 11:45, David Galloway wrote:
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail
Hi,
I'm running SpamAssassin 3.4.2 on Ubuntu 16.04 with Postfix and Mailman3.
Occasionally, SpamAssassin will rewrite a message's subject with a score
higher than what's in X-Spam-Status. This is not a rounding issue.
For example, I'm looking at an e-mail now with "* SPA
Hi Charles,
Yes, it was an incorrectly escaped forward slash in a subject rule.
On 2019/06/24 16:12, Charles Amstutz wrote:
Hi Charles,
My apologies, I forgot to provide feedback to the mailing list. Bad regex was
the cause of this problem for us, too. As soon as the custom rule was fixed
Hi Charles,
My apologies, I forgot to provide feedback to the mailing list. Bad
regex was the cause of this problem for us, too. As soon as the custom
rule was fixed, the problem went away.
Kind Regards,
Stephan
On 2019/06/24 15:58, Charles Amstutz wrote:
But as has already been pointed
> But as has already been pointed out it has the combination of
> MISSING_FROM and HK_RANDOM_FROM, and the latter is based on a
> From:addr test.
I saw this too, however, I thought I noticed a potentially bad regex (from
another custom rule) breaking mine. I think this is the case as when I
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:10:51 +0300
Savvas Karagiannidis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my guess is that for some reason an empty line is inserted in the
> email somewhere above the headers and before the message is processed
> by spamassassin. This will cause all headers below this empty line to
> be treated
ule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
> hitting on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have
> started during last week, which is when clients started complaining
> about false positive detections. Please see example headers at the
> following link:
>
> https://pastebin.com/raw/G
Subject: header
so the spam scanner both did and did not see the From: header.
What do you use for mail scanning?
On 2019/06/04 10:55, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
hitting on emails
- fantomas wrote:
On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
> We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
> hitting on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have
> started during last week, which is when clients started complaining
> about false positiv
On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
> We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
> hitting on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have
> started during last week, which is when clients started complaining
> about false positive detections
On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 11:43:44 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically
> > hitting on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have
> > sta
On 3 Jun 2019, at 2:20, Stephan Fourie wrote:
Hi,
We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically hitting
on emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have started during
last week, which is when clients started complaining about false
positive detections. Please see
Hi,
We're currently seeing the rule MISSING_SUBJECT sporadically hitting on
emails that have a subject. This issue seems to have started during last
week, which is when clients started complaining about false positive
detections. Please see example headers at the following link:
https
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Olivier Coutu wrote:
meta FROM_IN_TO_AND_SUBJ (__TO_EQ_FROM && __SUBJ_HAS_FROM_1)
header __SUBJ_HAS_FROM_1 ALL =~
/\nFrom:\s+(?:[^\n<]{0,80}<)?([^\n\s>]+)>?\n(?:[^\n]{1,100}\n)*Subject:\s+[^\n]{0,100}\1[>,
meta FROM_IN_TO_AND_SUBJ (__TO_EQ_FROM && __SUBJ_HAS_FROM_1)
header __SUBJ_HAS_FROM_1 ALL =~
/\nFrom:\s+(?:[^\n<]{0,80}<)?([^\n\s>]+)>?\n(?:[^\n]{1,100}\n)*Subject:\s+[^\n]{0,100}\1[>,\s\n]/ism
If the from and the to are identical and the subject is
test
On 30.05.18 15:12, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
I prepend my spam emails’ subject fields with a specific string to indicate
spam, like many do, I presume. Will that string get noticed by bayes and
if so, should I do something to prevent it?
On 30 May 2018, at 15:21, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On 30 May 2018, at 15:21, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 30.05.18 15:12, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
>> I prepend my spam emails’ subject fields with a specific string to indicate
>> spam, like many do, I presume. Will that string get noticed by bayes and
On 30.05.18 15:12, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
I prepend my spam emails’ subject fields with a specific string to indicate
spam, like many do, I presume. Will that string get noticed by bayes and
if so, should I do something to prevent it?
most probably, yes.
However, not by your bayes
Silly question or not, here goes:
I prepend my spam emails’ subject fields with a specific string to indicate
spam, like many do, I presume. Will that string get noticed by bayes and if so,
should I do something to prevent it?
--
Palvelin.fi Hostmaster
postmas...@palvelin.fi
Ironically, Gmail's spam filters have filtered every single one of the emails
in this thread. :-\
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
On 2018-02-05 22:55, Philip wrote:
> So lately I'm getting LOTS of emails coming directly though the filters so
> most likely time to investigate how to create one.
>
> The subject is always 'hey'
>
> Subject: hey
>
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:07:40 +0300
On 2/5/2018 6:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Any suggestions on where to start? nOOb here!
Do you have Bayes enabled and are you training it?
Also do you have KAM.cf?
Regards,
kAM
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, Alex wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to identify if the Subject contains the sender?
You mean like __SUBJ_HAS_FROM_1 ?
I realize this probably isn't a significant spam indicator, but I think
it would be helpful.
From: example.com <r...@multiviscomindo.com>
T
Hi,
Is it possible to identify if the Subject contains the sender? I
realize this probably isn't a significant spam indicator, but I think
it would be helpful.
From: example.com <r...@multiviscomindo.com>
To: mor...@example.com
Subject: mor...@example.com You have just 15 hours to
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018, Philip wrote:
So lately I'm getting LOTS of emails coming directly though the filters so
most likely time to investigate how to create one.
The subject is always 'hey'
Subject: hey
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:07:40 +0300
From: Darya Message-ID
So lately I'm getting LOTS of emails coming directly though the filters
so most likely time to investigate how to create one.
The subject is always 'hey'
Subject: hey
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:07:40 +0300
From: Darya Message-ID: <8f35b00fb4e07d18ce82448ec9747...@112it4u.ro>
X-
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018, Alex wrote:
Hi,
The only "solution" I've ever come up with is to create a meta rule group to
account for the Subject hit:
body __FOO /foo/
header __SUBJ_FOO Subject =~ /foo/
meta FOO __FOO && !__SUBJ_FOO
I have to admit it's annoyed me on occasion t
1 - 100 of 880 matches
Mail list logo
