Justin Shore wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Dallman Ross wrote:
Have you read `man procmailex'?
I haven't installed the man pages yet.
You can find them easily on the net. Google and you'll have
them in one minute.
BTW, your message was flagged as spam by SA. I couldn't for
Why are you running procmail list mail through SA? Very little
spam comes through this list. Most people whitelist the list
before spam checks are run.
me find the message that another list member relied to.
I thought I didn't get it until I checked one of my spam mboxs.
It appears you made a direct-to-MX connection to send this one
message.
No, I didn't. I use the SMTP server at my main shell provider.
But I log in with T-Online in Germany.
Your dynamically assigned IP is in dialups.relays.osirusoft.com,
dialups.visi.com, and dnsbl.njabl.org (note that the last two
DNSBLs were added by me manually and the score I chose for all
those DNSBLs was 1).
I have no real idea what you're talking about with manual scores.
I don't use any blacklists, and certainly not any for dynamic
dial-ups at major ISPs. Talk about asking for false positives!
The kicker though is that SA also believes your MUA was forging
an LookOut(tm) MUA. I don't know if that's true or not. Perhaps
their latest rule doesn't account for whatever version of Outlook
you're using. I thought I'd pass that along though.
Thanks. I know about it. But it is a problem of SpamAssassin's,
not mine. This is Outlook. There is a bug report on the SA
bugtracking site, I noticed. Since I am using the Real McCoy,
and since I am not a regular user of SA myself, I don't know
just what I'm supposed to do about it. You will have to whitelist
me until SA fixes that, I suppose.
This is just another reason of many why I use my own home-rolled
recipes and not SA. My own false-positive rate is 1.4% over
the last 100 days. False negatives are under 0.1%. I get
250 spams a day (and about 50 legit messages), and I hadn't had
a false negative (spam in my inbox) since May 9th until today.
I patch every hole that happens as it happens. Lately I only
have to do something in procmail every couple of days.
put a message over the threshold just by being direct-to-mx.
I wasn't aware SA used that heuristic, but I use it in my
own recipes. I developed it on my own after careful observation
over time. Hmm. But anyway, my messages sent with Outlook
are not "direct-to-mx," in that I don't run my own mail server.
Oh: I also have, and developed on my own, a bogus-Microsoft-
mail-client recipe set. Needless to say, it doesn't mark mail
from my legit copy of Outlook as bogus.
I suppose I should point out that I generally reject direct-to-mx
mail from Sendmail with the DUL.
Bully for you. (If you are going to reject mail, you'd better
make sure it is what you are characterizing it as, it seems
to me.) Again, if I were you, I would not run procmail list
mail through SA.
--
"Weltbedenkend, ortlich lenkend!"
-- Original von W. Dallman Ross
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail