[SURBL-Discuss] RE: Surbl getting tripped,
but I can't figure out why
Jeff Chan
jeffc at surbl.org
Fri Feb 11 02:39:29 CET 2005
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."
More information about the Discuss
mailing list