How did this get through?
A very obvious bit of rubbish spam found its way into our catch-all mailbox this morning. I'm wondering how it managed to escape the spam filters as nothing like this has got though in ages. Was Postini only half awake or has someone's pet cat been trying to send a message to our feline mob? 
Headers:
From: ddrljaca@neva.hr
Subject: BGMnXzVcpV
Date: 7 September 2008 09:17:57 BST
To: xxxx@xxxx.plus.com
Return-Path: <ddrljaca@neva.hr>
Envelope-To: xxxx@xxxx.plus.com
Delivery-Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:05:28 +0100
Received: from exprod5mx243.postini.com ([64.18.0.163] helo=psmtp.com) by pih-sunmxcore13.plus.net with smtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1KcH96-0001aB-59 for xxxx@xxxx.plus.com; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:05:28 +0100
Received: from source ([68.188.16.119]) by exprod5mx243.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:05:26 EDT
Message-Id: <88909.byrd@kip>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pstn-Neptune: 500/255/0.51/45
X-Pstn-Levels: (S: 2.15098/99.90000 CV:99.9999 )
X-Pstn-Settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1
X-Pstn-Addresses: from <ddrljaca@neva.hr> [309/15]
X-Pn-Pstn: Spam 4
X-Pn-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-Pn-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Message:
fbqBGMnXzVcpVtKHgiQp
Headers:
From: ddrljaca@neva.hr
Subject: BGMnXzVcpV
Date: 7 September 2008 09:17:57 BST
To: xxxx@xxxx.plus.com
Return-Path: <ddrljaca@neva.hr>
Envelope-To: xxxx@xxxx.plus.com
Delivery-Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:05:28 +0100
Received: from exprod5mx243.postini.com ([64.18.0.163] helo=psmtp.com) by pih-sunmxcore13.plus.net with smtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1KcH96-0001aB-59 for xxxx@xxxx.plus.com; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:05:28 +0100
Received: from source ([68.188.16.119]) by exprod5mx243.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:05:26 EDT
Message-Id: <88909.byrd@kip>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pstn-Neptune: 500/255/0.51/45
X-Pstn-Levels: (S: 2.15098/99.90000 CV:99.9999 )
X-Pstn-Settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1
X-Pstn-Addresses: from <ddrljaca@neva.hr> [309/15]
X-Pn-Pstn: Spam 4
X-Pn-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-Pn-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Message:
fbqBGMnXzVcpVtKHgiQp
Quote from: Mad X-Pstn-Neptune: 500/255/0.51/45
X-Pstn-Levels: (S: 2.15098/99.90000 CV:99.9999 )
X-Pstn-Settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1
X-Pstn-Addresses: from <ddrljaca@neva.hr> [309/15]
X-Pn-Pstn: Spam 4
It was only marked as Spam 4 due to the value highlighted in bold. Increasing the aggressiveness of the filter to 4 would catch this but you'd then run a strionger chance of getting false positives.
I understand about the scoring and how that affects the marking as Spam but don't understand why this very obvious rubbish got a better score than some legitimate emails.
Do you think this might be the only one of its sort sent to us for ages too, as well as received? As I said, nothing like it has got right through certainly since Postini has been doing the initial spam filtering, though there have been others similar (blank headers etc rather than random ones) landing in our Spam folders.
I have the Spam filter set to 3 and a list of whitelisted addresses with more to be added, so don't really want to set it any higher.
It's not a big deal but I'm just curious as to why it escaped detection.
Do you think this might be the only one of its sort sent to us for ages too, as well as received? As I said, nothing like it has got right through certainly since Postini has been doing the initial spam filtering, though there have been others similar (blank headers etc rather than random ones) landing in our Spam folders.
I have the Spam filter set to 3 and a list of whitelisted addresses with more to be added, so don't really want to set it any higher.
It's not a big deal but I'm just curious as to why it escaped detection.
Gracious me, P-P, Postini thought that one ten times more respectable than the one we got this morning!!! 
well it was sent to my wife 
One overnight got well and truly caught in my Spam folder as it should do. 
To: "zJbbwBAKMk" <xxx@xxxx.plus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-pstn-neptune: 500/323/0.65/71
X-pstn-levels: (S: 1.28127/99.86050 CV:99.9999 )
X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1
X-pstn-addresses: from <dcripleynn@smart-biggar.ca> [309/15]
X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine
X-pn-pstn: Spam 1
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Subject: GXRQMTejAcTaoAfPxzJ
Message was: ejAcTaoAfPxz
To: "zJbbwBAKMk" <xxx@xxxx.plus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-pstn-neptune: 500/323/0.65/71
X-pstn-levels: (S: 1.28127/99.86050 CV:99.9999 )
X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1
X-pstn-addresses: from <dcripleynn@smart-biggar.ca> [309/15]
X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine
X-pn-pstn: Spam 1
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Subject: GXRQMTejAcTaoAfPxzJ
Message was: ejAcTaoAfPxz
Not many people write a single word message containing random upper and lower case letters! I think that should count for something. They've all got a Spam rating of some sort anyway, however low, except for the last example pierre-pierre posted about, so Postini is succeeding in recognising them as dodgy most of the time.
(BTW, you assume correctly; I can just about distinguish between Chinese and Japanese characters but can speak/read neither language.)
(BTW, you assume correctly; I can just about distinguish between Chinese and Japanese characters but can speak/read neither language.)