Maybe I'm dense (or haven't been paying too much attention to SA/MS/SURBL, because they've been working so well), but I received a few emails this AM from clients and vendors who have sent us emails before that were marked as spam.
For example, I received an email from blinkingeyemedia .com (NOT listed in SURBL), but the SA header section listed: X-E9-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=10.401, required 5, BAYES_00 -2.60, URIBL_OB_SURBL 4.00, URIBL_PH_SURBL 5.00, URIBL_SC_SURBL 4.00)
The only URLs in the whole email were blinkingeyemedia (in a sig) and engineno9inc .com (my domain) in a mailto: from a response.
This happened twice with this particular correspondent, but other emails got through just fine (with the same URLs and at roughly the same time)!
A client sent an email to one of my domains, jksevents .com (not listed), and the only url in the email was jksevents in a mailto:. Similar response from SURBL.
Has anyone seen this? Do I need to post more info? Does someone need to see the email off list?
I've had this happen before, but they were one offs, and when they occurred, I checked the lookup, scratched my head when the URLs didn't show, and promptly put them on the back burner.
Thanks! Alden
-----Original Message----- From: Alden Levy [mailto:alden@engineno9inc.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 11:37 AM To: discuss@lists.surbl.org Subject: Surbl getting tripped, but I can't figure out why
Maybe I'm dense (or haven't been paying too much attention to SA/MS/SURBL, because they've been working so well), but I received a few emails this AM from clients and vendors who have sent us emails before that were marked as spam.
For example, I received an email from blinkingeyemedia .com (NOT listed in SURBL), but the SA header section listed: X-E9-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=10.401, required 5, BAYES_00 -2.60, URIBL_OB_SURBL 4.00, URIBL_PH_SURBL 5.00, URIBL_SC_SURBL 4.00)
The only URLs in the whole email were blinkingeyemedia (in a sig) and engineno9inc .com (my domain) in a mailto: from a response.
This happened twice with this particular correspondent, but other emails got through just fine (with the same URLs and at roughly the same time)!
A client sent an email to one of my domains, jksevents .com (not listed), and the only url in the email was jksevents in a mailto:. Similar response from SURBL.
Has anyone seen this? Do I need to post more info? Does someone need to see the email off list?
I've had this happen before, but they were one offs, and when they occurred, I checked the lookup, scratched my head when the URLs didn't show, and promptly put them on the back burner.
Thanks! Alden
Sorry, forgot to include that I'm running MS 4.36.4, SA3.000001 on FC1, Perl 5.8.1
On Thursday, February 10, 2005, 9:00:52 AM, Alden Levy wrote:
Maybe I'm dense (or haven't been paying too much attention to SA/MS/SURBL, because they've been working so well), but I received a few emails this AM from clients and vendors who have sent us emails before that were marked as spam.
For example, I received an email from blinkingeyemedia .com (NOT listed in SURBL), but the SA header section listed: X-E9-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=10.401, required 5, BAYES_00 -2.60, URIBL_OB_SURBL 4.00, URIBL_PH_SURBL 5.00, URIBL_SC_SURBL 4.00)
The only URLs in the whole email were blinkingeyemedia (in a sig) and engineno9inc .com (my domain) in a mailto: from a response.
This happened twice with this particular correspondent, but other emails got through just fine (with the same URLs and at roughly the same time)!
A client sent an email to one of my domains, jksevents .com (not listed), and the only url in the email was jksevents in a mailto:. Similar response from SURBL.
Has anyone seen this? Do I need to post more info? Does someone need to see the email off list?
I've had this happen before, but they were one offs, and when they occurred, I checked the lookup, scratched my head when the URLs didn't show, and promptly put them on the back burner.
Sorry, forgot to include that I'm running MS 4.36.4, SA3.000001 on FC1, Perl 5.8.1
Hi Alden, Yes, none of the domains you mentioned are listed in SURBLs.
There appears to be an intermittent SpamAssassin bug related to this:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3997
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
-
Alden Levy -
Jeff Chan