Re: mail server send mail to yahoo bulk folder

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Tim wrote:
>>> Another mitigating factor is the domain name that you post from.
>>> Certain top-level-domains get red flagged as being more likely to be
>>> spam, simply by the name, regardless of content.  e.g. Spamassassin,
>>> IGNORANTLY, does that with .biz and .info TLDs.  I say that with such
>>> venom because in the years that I've been on the internet, and in the
>>> thousands of spam that I've received, I've noticed about seven spams
>>> that came with .biz TLDs in them.


James Wilkinson:
>> a bit over 2% of my spam includes a (relatively well-formed) .biz URL,
>> and well over 6% of it includes an .info URL.
>>
>> I understand that the reason SpamAssassin *does* flag up those e-mails
>> with a .biz or .info TLD is simply that across their set of spam and
>> non-spam, it does turn into a useful indicator.

To me, merely 2% of spam having it doesn't justify using it as a
prominent detector of spam.  Nearly all of my spam came from .com
domains, we should flag all .com mail as being spam...

It really is a stupid way of managing spam.  They're both legit domains,
and the .info one is far more correct than the widespread misuse of .com
for non-commercial reasons.


Sjoerd Mullender:
> I don't quite understand what the http:// bit does in your command.
> That checks for URLs embedded in the mail but Tim was talking about TLDs
> where the mail originated.

Yes, in that message, though in practice the entire message was parsed.
Any mention of one gets detected.

My main beef with it has been not that it uses it as a "slightly higher
rating", but that it flags it *as* spam, outright.  On the basis that an
e-mail came from that domain, or mentions a URI inside it with it, it'd
be flagged as BEING spam.  So, completely NON spam e-mail was getting
dumped, carte blanche.  Often recipients were completely unaware of
this.

Yet, real spam, loaded with a plethora of readily identifiable
indicators gets a quit low probability rating, and still gets through to
the inbox.

The detection priorities are all out of whack.  Spamassassin's moronic
defaults (e.g. the above mentioned behaviour), plus it's black & white
listing databasing on "to" and "from" addresses, instead of the content
of the message (e.g. white list a mailing list, and all spam gets
approved that forges those addresses), earns it utter disdain in my
opinion.  I have a VERY low opinion on software that produces false
positives.

-- 
(Currently testing FC5, but still running FC4, if that's important.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux