On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 18:12 -0500, dimesio wrote:
> Martin: I just posted a reply to your list of emails that had been
> flagged as spam. You may not get it because my reply contains URLs,
> and it's clear your spam filter is overly aggressive about filtering
> those out. Check the forum if your spam filter ate it.
>
You're right on both counts: my spam filter got your reply and I have
terms and URLs in my list that should not have been there and have been
removed:
wine-reviews.net - tagging this was clearly a bit of idiocy
the content of the message I use to regression
test catching this URL makes that quite clear
imageshack.us - a mistake: this is a pastebin equiv for images
and I missed the advertising URL I should have tagged
at the end of the test message.
I can't see why the Partsmart messages got tagged: possibly something to
do with the headers.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback and the opportunity to fix my URL hit
list. This also gives me the incentive to modify my spamkiller setup so
it puts spam in a holding tank for a few days instead of killing it
immediately.
> IMO, you've give us an excellent example of how spam filters can get
> things horribly wrong. Quite possibly that's what happened with his
> ISP.
>
Yes, I agree - and of of course the fact that my filters got your
response reinforces that. Did you include messages rather than links to
them? If so that would explain it being caught because of course replies
to to messages that contain spammy references will also be tagged if
they quote the references.
Martin
