[Openchrome-users] [OT] Spam problem

[Forest Bond]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 04:39:12PM +0000, John Robinson wrote:
>>> Content analysis details:   (1.9 points, 1.0 required)
>>>
>>>  pts rule name              description
>>> ---- ---------------------- 
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>  0.0 FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P   Host is pool-.+verizon.net
>>>  0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL            RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
>>>                             [71.169.171.209 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
>>>  0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL      RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP 
>>> address
>>>                             [71.169.171.209 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
>>>  0.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
>>>                             [score: 0.4925]
>>>  0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC           Delivered to trusted network by host with
>>>                             dynamic-looking rDNS
>
> Forest, that IP address appears appears only in emails sent by you, I think 
> it's your own one. You're connecting by authenticated SMTP to a server at 
> webfaction.com, which is fine; my spamassassin doesn't count against you 
> for this, so I suspect some server on the return leg between the 
> openchrome.org list server and you is adding its Received: header in the 
> wrong place, or your spamassassin is just getting it wrong.

Right you are.  Sorry about that.

I use fetchmail.  By default, it delivers mail via SMTP on the local system.  As
a result, my SMTP server is adding a header.  I'm telling fetchmail to use
sendmail directly now.  That should fix things.

>> My settings are a little on the aggressive side.
>
> Sure are, I'd never recommend against spam-binning anything scoring less 
> than 5.0.

I've not really had many problems (although this is the kind of thing where I
may not be aware of the problems that I do have).

5.0 is the default, BTW, so I think that it is reasonable to set the threshold
lower.  Surely the default value is on the safe side of things?

None-the-less, I've heeded your warning, and will bump my threshold to 3.0.

Funny enough, I've not had this issue with any of the other mailing lists that I
am on.  Dunno.

Thanks for your help, John.

-Forest
-- 
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://wiki.openchrome.org/pipermail/openchrome-users/attachments/20080114/df02673b/attachment.bin