On 15 Nov 2018, at 7:52, RW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 01:22:00 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
On 14 Nov 2018, at 20:11, Alex wrote:
Where is it getting these long hostname strings from?
There's a bunch of garbage HTML using invisible text (font-size: 0)
between tiny bits of visible text to break
So I've been tasked with researching an issue with the mail server at work.
We use Spamassassin and at present, it's not blocking some pretty obvious
spam, largely from the domain qq.com. Basically email is slipping through,
being bounced back at the end receiving server, then our server tries to
This little pearl got through upstream filter on a mailing list.
https://pastebin.com/JhDGvAAA
I show the body only, but the MIME headers were:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Also:
From: yourfrugalstore
Message-ID:
On 11/15/2018 7:54 AM, Brent Clark wrote:
> Good day Guys
>
> Just came across and share
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18458212
>
> thats leads too https://lwn.net/Articles/769917/
>
> HTH
> Brent
> P.s. From my side, thanks to all involved and for your time. Much
> appreciated.
Way to
On Nov 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> The rawbody rules perform much better (unsurprising), and the ASCII-only one
> has a better raw S/O:
It looks like HTML_ENTITY_ASCII has been rolled out -- did you decide against
the more general unicode due to S/O score? I predict we will
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Nov 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, John Hardin wrote:
The rawbody rules perform much better (unsurprising), and the ASCII-only one
has a better raw S/O:
It looks like HTML_ENTITY_ASCII has been rolled out -- did you decide
against the more general
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Nov 15, 2018, at 2:36 PM, John Hardin wrote:
That and its resistance to FP avoidance.
Despite the generality, I don't see a significant FP risk on the general unicode version.
I don't see ANY legitimate reason why an email would hard-encode long
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, MarkCS wrote:
Even when the message is manually learned and the domain in question is
blacklisted, these messages are getting through.
If you're blacklisting the domain, do so at the MTA level.
My question is basically, why would BAYES be failing to learn?
The most
On Nov 15, 2018, at 2:36 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> That and its resistance to FP avoidance.
Despite the generality, I don't see a significant FP risk on the general
unicode version. I don't see ANY legitimate reason why an email would
hard-encode long sequences of human-readable text, in
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Nov 15, 2018, at 2:36 PM, John Hardin wrote:
It doesn't seem to have a very high score just yet... I'm still getting FNs
with the rule hitting (due to those messages hitting BAYES_00/05).
Manually train those messages as spam and that should
On Nov 15, 2018, at 2:36 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem to have a very high score just yet... I'm still getting FNs
>> with the rule hitting (due to those messages hitting BAYES_00/05).
>
> Manually train those messages as spam and that should repair itself...
Actually... right
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 01:22:00 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2018, at 20:11, Alex wrote:
>
> > Where is it getting these long hostname strings from?
>
> There's a bunch of garbage HTML using invisible text (font-size: 0)
> between tiny bits of visible text to break Bayes and/or specific
Good day Guys
Just came across and share
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18458212
thats leads too https://lwn.net/Articles/769917/
HTH
Brent
P.s. From my side, thanks to all involved and for your time. Much
appreciated.
13 matches
Mail list logo
