-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 24 March 2003 10:51 pm, Brad Shelton wrote:

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:27:54AM -0500, Franklin Maurer wrote:

...

I installed spamassassin the other day, but it is identifying a piece of mail as spam when it is info that I requested.

That isn't surprising -- "auto response" messages, messages from "tech support", and so on have a lot of simularities to "spam" [namely, http links to a web-based item that tracks your specific complaint or question; spamassassin semi-correctly notes these as links tied to your e-mail, a trick "spammers" use to validate addresses as an "address of someone actively reading e-mail"]

...

Right now it just goes into the folder caughtspam, ... I'd rather have spamassassin not rate this as spam.

As noted earlier, you can set a "whitelist" for correspondance from known companies (tech support). There is also an "auto-white-list" adjustment that spamassassin can make, but it needs to be "trained" as to who sends spam-like messages that aren't really spam. Also, you can feed a "detected" message back to spamassassin with a command-line switch that tells spamassassin that "this isn't really spam, adjust accordingly" [see the docs for details]

...

I read about the spam rating(>5.0), and am reluctant to set it higher because some spam that I receive regularly is a 6 - 6.5. Is there a "mail from these addresses are not spam" file I can make?

When I set this up originally, I actually made three rules [one was to pre-filter through spamassassin, so I suppose that doesn't really count] the rules were: 1) spam-flag = YES: mark as read, play sound "kling" [from openoffice sounds] 2) spam-level >= "*******" [note there are 7 asterisks]: move to trash and play sound "explos" I also had spamassassin re-write the SUBJECT line to put ****SPAM**** in the subject, so any "close call" items could be easily found and dealt with (note also that "move to trash" doesn't actually dispose of the messages until I issue an "empty trash" command -- usually I would do a quick visual scan for anything that shouldn't be trashed before I emptied it...) - -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://osnut.homelinux.net/TomEmerson.asc iD8DBQE+gBSuV/YHUqq2SwsRApzbAJ0UC1Nt64t7u/L4rJ74Gi4gwY/vkACgvhRo gqVS4VqPRmrvi4nDNvtpISc= =PlzF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tuesday 25 March 2003 08:07 am, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The 03.03.25 at 00:27, Franklin Maurer wrote:

...

I installed spamassassin the other day, but it is identifying a piece of mail as spam when it is info that I requested. Right now it just goes into the folder caughtspam, but eventually I'll toss 'em in the bit bucket or take some other action with them.

I would not delete them. I send them to a special folder, where now and then I have a glance. Note that spamassassin is not perfect, and will give false positives; if you set your filters to delete without question, you might miss important messages.

For example, some messages from this list are marked as spam.

I've haven't had that happen yet, but I've noticed a few that were rated 4 - 4.9. The deleting part was a | dream :-} -- Franklin Maurer Using SuSE 8.1

Thats interesting since they are not spam and I have no idea why spam assassin would treat my posts as spam. Certainly it would seem inappropriate to discriminate because I use my personal acronym of my full christian name Carl William Spitzer IV becomes CWSIV as my mail address. CWSIV On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:59:15 +0200 (CEST) "Carlos E. R." writes:

The 03.03.25 at 09:34, Franklin Maurer wrote:

...

...

For example, some messages from this list are marked as spam.

I've haven't had that happen yet, but I've noticed a few that were rated 4 - 4.9. The deleting part was a | dream :-}

For example, many or all from cwsiv@juno.com are marked as spam:

X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,AWL

If you want to delete, you'd better do so on those with a high rating. Those on the border line I prefer to check and delete manually.

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com

Franklin Maurer writes:

Here is the info from spamassassin ...

X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.8 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,AWL version=2.31 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.31 (devel $Id: SpamAssassin.pm,v 1.94.2.2 2002/06/20 17:20:29 hughescr Exp $) X-Spam-Report: 5.8 hits, 5 required; * 4.4 -- 'From' juno.com does not match 'Received' headers * 1.4 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment

So it seems it has more to do with juno than with CWSIV, or at least on mine.

Or more to do with using such an old version of Spamassassin. Here is the Spamassassin report I saw using the then current CVS head from cwsiv's message to which you are replying. As you can see it gets a healthy negative score, and that despite some of the 'negative generating' rules being removed from the CVS head (because some spammers were composing spam which triggered multiple 'non-spam' MUA rules, thus gaining very large negative scores which meant the spam being auto-learnt as non-spam by Bayes.) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_10,RCVD_IN_BONDEDSENDER, T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_01_10_20,T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_04_10_20, T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_08_10_20,T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_20_10_20 version=2.60-cvs X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-cvs (1.183-2003-03-27-exp) X-Spam-Report: ---- Start SpamAssassin results -8.50 points, 5 required; * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_20_10_20 * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_01_10_20 * -5.8 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 10 to 20% [score: 0.1243] * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_08_10_20 * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_04_10_20 * -5.7 -- RBL: Bonded sender, see http://www.bondedsender.org/referred.html [RBL check: found 69.113.9.217.query.bondedsender.org., type: 127.0.0.10] * 3.0 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment ---- End of SpamAssassin results

On Friday 04 April 2003 04:40 pm, Graham Murray wrote:

Franklin Maurer writes:

...

Here is the info from spamassassin ...

X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.8 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,AWL version=2.31 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.31 (devel $Id: SpamAssassin.pm,v 1.94.2.2 2002/06/20 17:20:29 hughescr Exp $) X-Spam-Report: 5.8 hits, 5 required; * 4.4 -- 'From' juno.com does not match 'Received' headers * 1.4 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment

So it seems it has more to do with juno than with CWSIV, or at least on mine.

Or more to do with using such an old version of Spamassassin. Here is the Spamassassin report I saw using the then current CVS head from cwsiv's message to which you are replying. As you can see it gets a healthy negative score, and that despite some of the 'negative generating' rules being removed from the CVS head (because some spammers were composing spam which triggered multiple 'non-spam' MUA rules, thus gaining very large negative scores which meant the spam being auto-learnt as non-spam by Bayes.)

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_10,RCVD_IN_BONDEDSENDER, T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_01_10_20,T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_04_10_20, T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_08_10_20,T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_20_10_20 version=2.60-cvs X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-cvs (1.183-2003-03-27-exp) X-Spam-Report: ---- Start SpamAssassin results -8.50 points, 5 required; * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_20_10_20 * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_01_10_20 * -5.8 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 10 to 20% [score: 0.1243] * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_08_10_20 * 0.0 -- BODY: T_BLANK_LINE_RATIO_04_10_20 * -5.7 -- RBL: Bonded sender, see http://www.bondedsender.org/referred.html [RBL check: found 69.113.9.217.query.bondedsender.org., type: 127.0.0.10] * 3.0 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment ---- End of SpamAssassin results

You're right. I upgraded / installed 2.53 from spamassassin and he is no longer tagged as a spammer. Thanks. What is the ... http://www.bondedsender.org/referred.html [RBL check: found

69.113.9.217.query.bondedsender.org., type: 127.0.0.10] * 3.0 -- AWL: Is this a 2.60 enhancement? or is this something I could / should use? -- Franklin Maurer Using SuSE 8.1

On Tuesday 01 April 2003 05:35 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

I assume you can customize the filtering and take me off that list. Its also possible that its a problem with legacy system which this is. Its Win31 with linux to be multibooted. I got it into a pentium II.

CWSIV

It shouldn't be a problem. I have a few others to add to spamassassin's white list as well. I think Carlos was just trying to show me that simply having spamassassin throw the "spam" into the bit bucket wasn't a wise idea because many things get misdiagnosed as spam. What's with the juno received thing though. ... X-Spam-Report: 6.5 hits, 5 required; * 1.1 -- BODY: A word in all caps repeated on the line * 4.4 -- 'From' juno.com does not match 'Received' headers * 0.7 -- Date: is 3 to 6 hours before Received: date * 0.3 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment If the Juno and the date were fixed you'd no longer be wrongly identified as a spammer. But I'll get you onto the list when I get around to it, until then I'll just have to remember to check my spam box. -- Franklin Maurer Using SuSE 8.1