Is the 'bounce handler' for this list a little confused?
I received this notice yesterday for a temporary mailbox overflow
condition that occurred nearly two weeks ago (Aug 4). Now, according to the list processor, because I received this e-mail, all is well, but still, why would it be generating this message so late? I reveiwed my mail logs and Aug 4 was the LAST day I had any bounces at all!

- Charles, HWCN

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org wrote:
Date: 16 Aug 2009 07:51:39 -0000
From: users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org
To: cgreg...@hwcn.org
Subject: [-1004.0] warning from users@spamassassin.apache.org


Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
users@spamassassin.apache.org mailing list.


Messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
message I received.

If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces,
I will remove your address from the users mailing list,
without further notice.


I've kept a list of which messages from the users mailing list have
bounced from your address.

Copies of these messages may be in the archive.
To retrieve a set of messages 123-145 (a maximum of 100 per request),
send a short message to:
  <users-get.123_...@spamassassin.apache.org>

To receive a subject and author list for the last 100 or so messages,
send a short message to:
  <users-in...@spamassassin.apache.org>

Here are the message numbers:

  81951
  81952
  81953
  81954
  81955
  81956

--- Enclosed is a copy of the bounce message I received.

Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 42321 invoked by uid 99); 4 Aug 2009 11:06:01 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
   by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:06:01 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
        tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received: from [199.212.94.76] (HELO barton.hwcn.org) (199.212.94.76)
   by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:05:49 +0000
Received: by barton.hwcn.org (Postfix)
        id 28400F3F01; Tue,  4 Aug 2009 07:02:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue,  4 Aug 2009 07:02:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: mailer-dae...@hwcn.org (Mail Delivery System)
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
To: users-return-81951-cgregory=hwcn....@spamassassin.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
        boundary="DCB31F3EFD.1249383747/barton.hwcn.org"
Message-Id: <20090804110227.28400f3...@barton.hwcn.org>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

This is a MIME-encapsulated message.

--DCB31F3EFD.1249383747/barton.hwcn.org
Content-Description: Notification
Content-Type: text/plain

This is the Postfix program at host barton.hwcn.org.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

                        The Postfix program

<cgreg...@hwcn.org>: can't create user output file

--DCB31F3EFD.1249383747/barton.hwcn.org
Content-Description: Delivery report
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; barton.hwcn.org
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: DCB31F3EFD
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; 
users-return-81951-cgregory=hwcn....@spamassassin.apache.org
Arrival-Date: Tue,  4 Aug 2009 07:02:26 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; cgreg...@hwcn.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; can't create user output file

--DCB31F3EFD.1249383747/barton.hwcn.org
Content-Description: Undelivered Message
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: by barton.hwcn.org (Postfix, from userid 110)
        id DCB31F3EFD; Tue,  4 Aug 2009 07:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on barton.hwcn.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2004.0 required=10.0 autolearn=disabled
        
tests=LOC_SAUSERS_RCVD_WL=-1000,LOC_SAUSERS_TO_WL=-1000,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
   by barton.hwcn.org with SMTP id riwjxgtyjhyrkvf3ej3kwf9hka;
   for cgreg...@hwcn.org;
   Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:02:11 -0400 (EDT)
   (envelope-from users-return-81951-cgregory=hwcn....@spamassassin.apache.org)
Received-SPF: Pass; receiver=barton.hwcn.org; client-ip=140.211.11.3;
   envelope-from=<users-return-81951-cgregory=hwcn....@spamassassin.apache.org>;
   helo=mail.apache.org; mechanism=a:mail.apache.org
X-Avenger: version=0.7.9; receiver=barton.hwcn.org; client-ip=140.211.11.3;
   client-port=63482; syn-fingerprint=65535:54:1:60:M1460,N,W3,S,T;
   data-bytes=0; network-path=208.65.246.17 208.72.120.5 74.205.221.2
   38.104.159.125 38.20.41.69 154.54.27.245 154.54.25.70 154.54.5.10
   4.68.101.94 4.69.140.190 4.69.140.190 4.69.132.53 4.69.132.61
   63.211.200.246 207.98.64.177 0.0.0.0 207.98.64.177;
   network-path-time=1249383730
Received: (qmail 39962 invoked by uid 500); 4 Aug 2009 11:04:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:users-h...@spamassassin.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscr...@spamassassin.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.spamassassin.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org
Received: (qmail 39954 invoked by uid 99); 4 Aug 2009 11:04:56 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
   by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:04:56 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
        tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of uh...@fantomas.sk designates 
195.168.3.66 as permitted sender)
Received: from [195.168.3.66] (HELO fantomas.fantomas.sk) (195.168.3.66)
   by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:04:44 +0000
Received: from fantomas.fantomas.sk (uh...@localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by fantomas.fantomas.sk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id 
n74B4Ndw002699
        for <users@spamassassin.apache.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:04:23 +0200
Received: (from uh...@localhost)
        by fantomas.fantomas.sk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n74B4NQ3002698
        for users@spamassassin.apache.org; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:04:23 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: fantomas.fantomas.sk: uhlar set sender to 
uh...@fantomas.sk using -f
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:04:23 +0200
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes training
Message-ID: <20090804110423.ga2...@fantomas.sk>
Mail-Followup-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
References: <55e03a0a0908032017w5e71aa0cr364aecef352df...@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55e03a0a0908032017w5e71aa0cr364aecef352df...@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On 03.08.09 23:17, MySQL Student wrote:
We have accumulated quite a large list of whitelisted users, primarily
because they were previously tagged incorrectly. I've extracted a copy
of all whitelisted mail into a separate mbox.

Certainly there is some spam in there as well, but assuming I only
learn the ham, would it make sense to train bayes using the emails
from this folder?

if you'll separate the spam, yes.

It's all business-related, but I'm concerned that it
may have things in the email that caused it to be tagged in the first
place, like excessive HTML, sent from a host with no reverse DNS, etc.
-- all the reasons for it being whitelisted in the first place.

If you only do whitelisting, and don't advise users to take care of why
their mail was marked as spam, many things may occur. However it may be
worth it.

Looking at the logs before the addresses were added to the whitelist,
I see quite a few that were BAYES_99, probably because they resemble
mailing lists, such as those from networkworld, for example.

do you train mailing list mail as spam? Or do you mean spamming lists?

IOW, I
wouldn't want to whitelist an email from networkworld.com, but one of
the company's partners could send the company an email that had many
of those characteristics.

Someone may also send them a one-line email with a small GIF as an
attachment, such as their corporate logo in their signature. This
would be a valid email, but also very much resembles the
characteristics of a typical spam.

This is all being done to hopefully train bayes to better recognize
corporate email, and hopefully cut down on the number of whitelisted
senders that must be added in the future (or, corporate email that
gets tagged then must be whitelisted).

Just do the training, altogether with advising users to get reverse DNS,
send html+text instead of html only etc. I think you are not the only one
who marks their mail as spam...

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; 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.
There's a long-standing bug relating to the x86 architecture that
allows you to install Windows.   -- Matthew D. Fuller

--DCB31F3EFD.1249383747/barton.hwcn.org--

Reply via email to