On 2026-04-02 12:34:05 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2026-04-01 18:16:49 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
> > >
> > > DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,DMARC_PASS,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,
> > >
> > > HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,
> > > SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL autolearn=no
> > > autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1
>
> [...]
> > - File a complaint with MSPIKE, whoever they are. See how that goes.
> > See who else comments about MSPIKE. Report back. This could lead
> > to removing them from the default rules, if they're super bad, or
> > who knows what else. But you have to complain. Any list can have a
> > problem, and if it's fixed fast, then that's the best we can hope
> > for.
>
> I've just sent a request via <https://mailspike.io/contact_us>.
Following this request, I've just received a mail saying that the IP
is no longer listed on MailSpike. However, "spamassassin -t" gives
in particular:
1.2 URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the ABUSE SURBL blocklist
[URI: seoserviceweb.com]
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[79.137.75.80 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
1.7 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
[URI: seoserviceweb.com]
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
At least, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5 is no longer present.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Pascaline project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
