Dear all,
recently happened that my mailer in "collaboration" with spamassassin decided to classify some of the messages to the PD list as "spam" and, weird, not even as "maybe-spam" , simply and directly as spam. Of course none of them were spam, they were really messages to the list. I'm wondering if i'm the only one having this problem here...i didnt investigate really the possible reasons...i just wanted to figure out if someone else has this "minor" problem. Thank you and sorry for the off-topics mail - i'm wondering if my mailer would trash my message too...:-)
ciao,
marco
On Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 10:59:08AM -0400, Marco Trevisani wrote:
Dear all,
recently happened that my mailer in "collaboration" with spamassassin decided to classify some of the messages to the PD list as "spam" and, weird, not even as "maybe-spam" , simply and directly as spam. Of course none of them were spam, they were really messages to the list. I'm wondering if i'm the only one having this problem here...
procmail rules seem to follow the 'first match' rule. so just put your PD match above your spam matches. like this:
:0:
- ^TOpd-.*@iem.*.at
pd/
:0:
- ^Subject:.*[PD
pd/
:0:
- ^Subject:.*pnpd
pd/
:0:
- ^Subject:.*[gridflow
pd/
:0:
- ^Subject:.*dataflow
pd/
:0
- ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
/dev/null
:0:
- ^Content-Type: text/html
SPAM/
:0
- ^Subject.*(Re.*[[0-9]+]|harmaceutical|OEM|0EM|O3M|corel|photoshop).*
SPAM/
:0
- ^From:.*(Cron.Daemon|Last.fm|MAILER.DAEMON).*
SPAM/
:0
- ^X-Mailer:.*(SquirrelMail|Outlook.Express).*
SPAM/
(ive never seen a false positive from spamassassin, thus the /dev/null...)
i didnt investigate really the possible reasons...i just wanted to figure out if someone else has this "minor" problem. Thank you and sorry for the off-topics mail - i'm wondering if my mailer would trash my message too...:-)
ciao, marco--
- marco trevisani *
- http://marco.trevisani.net marco@trevisani.net *
- Neither MS-Word nor MS-PowerPoint attachments please: *
- See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html *
- Gpg Fingerprint = A9CD 12D6 B658 A545 9BD1 77E9 47AD 8753 8110 7070 *
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Zitat von carmen _@whats-your.name:
On Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 10:59:08AM -0400, Marco Trevisani wrote:
Dear all,
recently happened that my mailer in "collaboration" with spamassassin decided to classify some of the messages to the PD list as "spam" and, weird, not even as "maybe-spam" , simply and directly as spam. Of course none of them were spam, they were really messages to the list. I'm wondering if i'm the only one having this problem here...
it would be good to know which spamassassin-tests have added enough points to classify which emails as spam. the only problem i recently had, was thunderbird thinking hcs's autobuild info mails being scam, due to the direct use of IP-addresses.
procmail rules seem to follow the 'first match' rule. so just put your PD match above your spam matches. like this:
they don't "seem to" follow. you tell a procmail rule whether processing should stop when a certain rule matches or whether it should go on. ~> man procmailrc
mfg.asd.r IOhannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I tried to add as a "trusted_network" the ip for the iem.whatever.at server which appears in all messages, but i found again another message from the PD in the spam directory (it might be that the two operations overlapped for a second, so i'll see later if it really worked).
One thing the spamassasin seems not to like at all (which is a very fixable detail, by the sender of course),it is when the sender computer has a wrong time, usually in the future, compared with the *real* universal time (considering the obvious adjustment with different timezones) at the moment of sending it.
Anyway here there is the header and the reason that made spamassasin unhappy... [below this message another one with some different explanation]
Return-Path: pd-list-bounces@iem.at X-Original-To: marco@localhost Delivered-To: marco@localhost Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id C571C2582ED for marco@localhost; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:46:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.3.4) for marco@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:46:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from puredata.info (inf182.kug.ac.at [193.170.191.182]) by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k7NDu2O29554; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:56:02 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=puredata.info) by puredata.info with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GFtAR-0002AK-81; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:53:18 +0200 Received: from iem.kug.ac.at ([193.170.191.180] helo=mail.iem.at) by puredata.info with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GFtAJ-0002AA-Cz for pd-list@puredata.info; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:53:12 +0200 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]) by mail.iem.at with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from timvets@gmail.com) id 1GFtBH-0003Je-St for pd-list@iem.at; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:54:23 +0200 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o67so206294pye for pd-list@iem.at; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:54:06 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
+b=U/qpFi08VRC+TlG87re84z6qZ5iHBSgRPoeSGS/1qrm9T2XBFb/biTUX8U3ZL8MNRpMvmrK6nHGbR6xZqTDfMWI51fdBHOAGjfmd8jRu/y +rJ9GOZuhHDEF2H52+joFDut+fZx1dMSGg6gt4CJttd727GTYZkj0N1B3YxP4mWOZo= Received: by 10.35.111.14 with SMTP id o14mr567830pym; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content analysis details: (6.6 points, 3.0 required)
pts rule name description
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO 1.4 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) [SPF failed: ] 2.4 SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (softfail) [SPF failed: ] 1.3 INFO_TLD URI: Contains an URL in the INFO top-level domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4671] 1.4 HTML_10_20 BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML
****************************THIS IS THE SECOND MESSAGE****************
X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on amarone X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=4.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50, DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,INFO_TLD,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.4
Content analysis details: (4.4 points, 3.0 required)
pts rule name description
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.8 DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours after Received: date 1.3 INFO_TLD URI: Contains an URL in the INFO top-level domain 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
24/08/2006 alle 21:34:40, +0200, zmoelnig@iem.at [AKA zmoelnig] ha scritto/escribió/wrote: | Zitat von carmen _@whats-your.name: | | >On Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 10:59:08AM -0400, Marco Trevisani wrote: | >> | >>Dear all, | >> | >>recently happened that my mailer in "collaboration" with spamassassin | >>decided to classify some of the messages to the PD list as "spam" and, | >>weird, not even as "maybe-spam" , simply and directly as spam. Of course | >>none of them were spam, they were really messages to the list. | >>I'm wondering if i'm the only one having this problem here... | | it would be good to know which spamassassin-tests have added enough | points to classify which emails as spam. | the only problem i recently had, was thunderbird thinking hcs's | autobuild info mails being scam, due to the direct use of IP-addresses. | | > | >procmail rules seem to follow the 'first match' rule. so just put | >your PD match above your spam matches. like this: | > | | they don't "seem to" follow. | you tell a procmail rule whether processing should stop when a certain | rule matches or whether it should go on. | ~> man procmailrc | | mfg.asd.r | IOhannes
Content-Description: Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel | pub 1024D/FEB276F4 2006-02-06 IOhannes m zmoelnig (gpg-key at iem) zmoelnig@iem.at | sub 2048g/9B4C4D62 2006-02-06 [expires: 2011-02-05]
| _______________________________________________ | PD-list@iem.at mailing list | UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
thanks, marco
- marco trevisani *
- http://marco.trevisani.net marco@trevisani.net *
- Neither MS-Word nor MS-PowerPoint attachments please: *
- See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html *
- Gpg Fingerprint = A9CD 12D6 B658 A545 9BD1 77E9 47AD 8753 8110 7070 *
-
carmen -
Marco Trevisani -
zmoelnig＠iem.at