On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 08:55:48 -0700 (MST)
hmiller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Commonly RCVD_IN_ rules are checking the last untrusted relay,
Most positive scoring rules check the last-external.
> but
> RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB is apparently doing all Received hops.
>
> Received: from host (host [2.2.2.2]) #The
Hi,
Commonly RCVD_IN_ rules are checking the last untrusted relay, but
RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB is apparently doing all Received hops.
Received: from host (host [2.2.2.2]) #The last untrusted relay
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([1.1.1.1]) #Authenticated MUA
I would expect it to check only 2.2.2.2 (th
>From: li...@rhsoft.net
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:13 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM and google IPs
>that's exactly what i *don't* have a contentfilter for to need customers
>report their spam and i have to talk with
Am 12.09.2016 um 18:53 schrieb David Jones:
*>From:*li...@rhsoft.net
*>Sent:* Monday, September 12, 2016 8:47 AM
*>To:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
*>Subject:* Re: RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM and google IPs
Am 12.09.2016 um 15:37 schrieb David Jones:
Has RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB been co
>From: li...@rhsoft.net
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:47 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM and google IPs
>Am 12.09.2016 um 15:37 schrieb David Jones:
>>>Has RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB been considered for adjustment as well? It's
&
On 9/12/2016 9:37 AM, David Jones wrote:
The majority of the junk can be blocked with zen.spamhaus.org and
sip.invaluement.com RBLs. Every small mail filtering platform should
use zen.spamhaus.org as long as they are under the free usage limit.
The sip.invaluement.com is a private RBL but very r
Am 12.09.2016 um 15:37 schrieb David Jones:
Has RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB been considered for adjustment as well? It's
hitting a lot more ham than spam here, including mail from facebook.
You should be safely whitelisting any major senders like Facebook at
the MTA level and in SA:
whitelist_auth *@am
>From: Alex
>Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:10 PM
>To: SA Mailing list
>Subject: Re: RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM and google IPs
>Hi,
>> COMMIT/trunk/rules/50_scores.cf
>>
>> Committed revision 1760066.
>>
>> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 0 0.5 0 0.5
&g
Hi,
> COMMIT/trunk/rules/50_scores.cf
>
> Committed revision 1760066.
>
> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 0 0.5 0 0.5
>
> should show up after next SA update
Has RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB been considered for adjustment as well? It's
hitting a lot more ham than spam here, including mail from facebook.
i receive tons of Ransonware from Google and MS Office365 IPs..
---PedroD
From: Bowie Bailey
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM and google IPs
On 9/9/2016 9:24 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>
> Am 0
On 09/08/2016 10:53 PM, Shane Williams wrote:
Hey all,
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that there are zero hits on this rule for
the two weeks prior to Aug. 31, and now I'm seeing it thousands of
times per week (not just against googl
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, RW wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:53:00 -0500 (CDT)
Shane Williams wrote:
Hey all,
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that there are zero hits on this rule for
the two weeks prior to Aug. 31, and now I'm seeing it th
On 9/9/2016 9:24 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 09.09.2016 um 15:20 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
On 9/8/2016 6:29 PM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:53:00 -0500 (CDT)
Shane Williams wrote:
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that there are
Am 09.09.2016 um 15:20 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
On 9/8/2016 6:29 PM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:53:00 -0500 (CDT)
Shane Williams wrote:
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that there are zero hits on this rule for
the two weeks prio
On 9/8/2016 6:29 PM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:53:00 -0500 (CDT)
Shane Williams wrote:
Hey all,
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that there are zero hits on this rule for
the two weeks prior to Aug. 31, and now I'm seeing it th
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:53:00 -0500 (CDT)
Shane Williams wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
> digging deeper, I realize that there are zero hits on this rule for
> the two weeks prior to Aug. 31, and now I'm seeing it thousands of
> times per w
Am 08.09.2016 um 22:53 schrieb Shane Williams:
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that there are zero hits on this rule for
the two weeks prior to Aug. 31, and now I'm seeing it thousands of
times per week (not just against google IPs).
I’m seeing the same thing here, I’ve had to adjust that score lower. Also
seeing lots of RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB false-positives.
On 9/8/16, 4:53 PM, "Shane Williams" wrote:
Hey all,
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that t
Hey all,
I'm seeing google IP ranges hit the RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM rule, and in
digging deeper, I realize that there are zero hits on this rule for
the two weeks prior to Aug. 31, and now I'm seeing it thousands of
times per week (not just against google IPs).
Was this rule added/changed/re-scored
19 matches
Mail list logo
