On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 12:59, Dirk Koopman wrote:
> --
Oooh cunning - starting with a sig separator...
What's even better is this part from your original message headers:-
X-Spam-Score: 6.8 (++++++)
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "post.tobit.co.uk", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
mailadmin@??? for details.
Content preview: It appears that my email address is now in regular use
as a 'From:' address in spam and I am starting to get significant clots
of bounces as a result. My filter doesn't seem to do anything... I have
an exim filter in place for the email account and the relevant section
looks like this: # Exim filter if error_message then finish endif if
$h_x-spam-flag: is "YES" then zwbif $h_from: contains "mailer-daemon"
and zwb# mailbox folder filtering happens below When tested with the
attached example it gives:- /usr/sbin/exim -v -bf .forward < /tmp/msg.4
Sender taken from "From " line Return-path taken from "Return-path:"
header line Return-path = <> Sender = postmaster@???
Recipient = root@??? Testing Exim filter file ".forward"
Condition is false: error_message Condition is true: $h_x-spam-flag: is
YES Save message to: spam ?)â²Filtering set up at least one significant
delivery or other action. No other deliveries will occur. The log entry
for the example below is: 2004-01-21 10:58:01 1AjG3W-0008JG-7Y <= <>
H=mail-4.tiscali.it [195.130.225.150] P=esmtp SD748
id@0CE0E10010F81DD@??? 2004-01-21 10:58:01
1AjG3W-0008JG-7Y => djk <djk@???> R=localuser T=local_mbx
2004-01-21 10:58:01 1AjG3W-0008JG-7Y Completed The problem is that it
doesn't work when used in anger on real, incoming, mail as you can see
from the log. ?*ä-- Please Note: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest
That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Message, It May
Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State.
From postmaster@??? Wed Jan 21 10:57:54 2004 Return-path:
<> Envelope-to: djk@??? Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004
10:58:01 +0000 Received: from mail-4.tiscali.it ([195.130.225.150]) by
post.tobit.co.uk Received: by mail-4.tiscali.it (6.7.019) id
400CE0E10010F837 for From: Mail Delivery Service
<postmaster@???> Subject: Delivery Status Notification
To: djk@ [...]
Content analysis details: (6.8 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.5 WEIRD_QUOTING BODY: Weird repeated double-quotation marks
0.3 HTML_SHOUTING4 BODY: HTML has very strong "shouting" markup
0.3 HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY BODY: HTML has unbalanced "body" tags
0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE BODY: HTML font color is blue
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font
0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE BODY: HTML font color not in safe 6x6x6 palette
2.8 UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY BODY: Message written in an undesired language
0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED BODY: HTML font color is red
1.5 BODY_8BITS BODY: Body includes 8 consecutive 8-bit characters
1.1 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR URI: Includes a link to a likely spammer email
And that header, since it included 8 bit characters, caused some other
sites to bounce the mail when sent out from the MLM.
Do you really consider your own mail to be spam?
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
