Re: mailspike dot net Minus 1?
joe a <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 9/21/2024 14:06:28, Reindl Harald (privat) wrote: > > > Am 21.09.24 um 18:51 schrieb joe a: >> Noticed some obvious spam slipping in due in great part to this: >> >> * -1.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) >> * [209.85.166.199 listed in wl.mailspike.net] >> >> Not a big deal for my low volume SOHO, but it's annoying. >> >> Has that check become unreliable? Sure, I can skip that check (I >> think) or alter the score, but any other thoughts? > > what makes you think a single rule is that important? > > sometimes IPs on whitelists starting to send spam, somehtimes > spamhosts are not on a blacklist until they are - so what's the fuss > about? > > 100% clear spam won't survive just because of a single -1 rule Here is a more complete list from a very similar message, received today. I failed to report the last -1.0 when I posted earlier. X-Spam-Report: * 1.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * -0.9 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) * [209.85.219.198 listed in wl.mailspike.net] * 0.2 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level * mail domains are different * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) * 1.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail * provider * [lurramachile[at]att.net] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and * EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different * -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list * manager