Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Enrico_C

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rome, Italy
  1. Or, maybe, challenge / response only suspect spam, not every email.
  2. I would like that Spamcop Mail had something like an Ignore / Kill feature. For instance, if the email is BOTH in a geographical blackhole, AND is listed on Spamcop.BL or the like, AND has a high SpamAssassin score, then just kill it, i.e. do not accept it , (and the sender will get a "not delivered" notification, I guess, explaining why). On the other hand, if the email is OR in a geographical blackhole, OR is listed on Spamcop.BL or the like, OR has a high SpamAssassin level, then let's ignore it, i.e. accept it in the Held Mail. That is just an example. Even better, each user can set what makes a KILL and what makes an IGNORE, with a set of rules. For instance SpamAssassin >20 ---> KILL Nigeria BlackHoles ---> KILL SpamAssassin >4 AND Spamcop.BL --> IGNORE and so on... What do you think? Of course, that would require some server resouces
  3. Enrico_C

    New SpamAssassin rules

    Maybe it would work fine if SpamAssassin added just 1,5 / 2 to its scoring when an IP is listed in the SpamCop BL.
  4. Enrico_C

    SpamAssassin and Communigate

    Well... that's just what I said Indeed it is, alas
  5. Enrico_C

    Lots of False Positives

    Well, I don't know where you are posting from and whick BL you are using in your Spamcop Mail options. I am Italian and Spamcop BL has been listing for a while the SMTPs of one of the most important Italian mail providers (Libero), so I got a good few false positives. To cut down false positives, I am not using the Spamcop BL and DNS SORBS BL anymore.
  6. Enrico_C


    Ok, that's how it works. But I still wonder why that range of IP addresses are fed to the parser. Shouldn't 192.168.xxx.xxx IPs be skipped? Yes, I know, that's normal for Spamcop. But other mail servers add an IP of their own, AFAIK You mean at Spamcop's?
  7. Enrico_C


    Three little WHYs 1) Why does Spamcop also scan the 192 IP range? For instance X-SpamCop-Checked: 2) Why doesn't SpamCop add an IP of its own to the first [last from the bottom] Received in the emails I get by POP3? For instance Received: (qmail 14190 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2004 10:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown ( by blade1.cesmail.net with QMQP; 2 Apr 2004 10:28:04 -0000 Received: from mail4.xxxMYISPxxx.it (xxx.xx.128.78) by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2004 10:28:03 -0000 3) Why is there a "from unknown" in the second Received? Thank you!
  8. Received: from <XXXXXX [at] people.it> by linux3.dave.it (CommuniGate Pro RULES 4.0.6) X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on blade1 X-spam-Level: * X-spam-Status: hits=1.5 tests=COMMUNIGATE version=2.63 I receive some of my email through a forwarder that uses Communigate Pro Trial. SpamAssassin doesn't like that and adds 1.5 hits for it! How can I fix that? If I raise my SA threshold, it would become too high for the rest of my mail.
  9. Enrico_C

    WhiteList Extension

    Agreed. And whitelisting on TO: , SUBJECT: and other fields would be pretty useful too :-)
  10. Enrico_C

    Webmail filters

    I see! Yes, I thought the same as you. You mean the "Stop checking if this rule matches?" option ? Doesn't that apply to the single processed message?
  11. Enrico_C

    How cam I whitelist this?

    I thought I already did so, as I whitelisted groups.msn.com that's in the reply-to. Maybe that's it! I'll give it a try! Thank you!
  12. I am talking about the filters in the webmail, which can be useful, for instance, to move to the same folder all the emails with the same TO address or the same FROM. 1) I set a few filters, but I noticed that just one filter at a time is executed when I login to webmail. 2) Can I apply webmail filters to unread emails only?
  13. I want to whitelist the emails I get from an MSN group [they are sent to a Hotmail address of mine, and I pick them by mail collecting] I tried whitelisting [at]groups.msn.com , but it doesn't seem to work with this Return-Path: <Xxxxxx [at] xxxxxxxx.com> Delivered-To: Xxxxxxxx [at] spamcop.net To: NameOfTheGroup [at] groups.msn.com Bcc: Reply-To: "NameOfTheGroup" <NameOfTheGroup [at] groups.msn.com> From: "Xxxxxxxxxx" <Xxxxxxxxx [at] xxxxxxxx.com>
  14. Enrico_C

    New SpamAssassin rules

    About the new Chickenpox rule: I noticed that Chickenpox alerts in a few legitimate emails I received. One was in a text-only newsletter I get. I think it was triggered by lines such as these httml://xxxxx.it.html?ADVD=724219.87618.1.0162531. (I put the Xs in place of the site name) The result was X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on blade4 X-spam-Level: ** X-spam-Status: hits=2.7 tests=J_CHICKENPOX_35,J_CHICKENPOX_39,J_CHICKENPOX_43, LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,MAILTO_TO_REMOVE, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER version=2.63
  15. Enrico_C

    Bayesian filtering

    I am not an expert at all and maybe I am missing something, but I wonder why Bayes is trained after SC BL results. This way, it turns out to be kinda duplicate, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be better if training would be independent from the BL and only based on users' choiches? Just my 1 cent