Spam filtering

[#1]

But my brother is finding that either he can't white list or the system refuses to recognise the whitelisting.

[#2]

Quote from: SteveA

X-Plusnet-Relay: e9a06ec8bd7371fc0048c9fba6e295f1 X-pstn-neptune: 35/35/1.00/87 X-pstn-levels:     (S: 1.13784/99.90000 CV:99.0000 ) X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1 X-pstn-addresses: from <steve@my.domain.here> [db-null] X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine X-pn-pstn: Spam 1 X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00) Subject: [-SPAM-] templating system

Quote from: Anotherone

In this particular case as the score is not high but seems to be above the threshold of your settings, it's going to be interesting to see what PN have to say.

The message contains the X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine header which causes 20 to be subtracted from the spam score S before comparison with the threshold, so rating it Spam 1 is correct. However the presence of an X-Plusnet-Relay: header (assuming the value is valid) should override spam tagging. Tagging appears to me not to be working as designed. I'll flag this up to PN.

[#3]

The presence of the X-Plusnet-Relay header would allow through a message marked as org good (because from a Plusnet address). But does the same apply to a hosted domain, where the From address is not whitelisted?

[#4]

Quote from: SteveA

But my brother is finding that either he can't white list or the system refuses to recognise the whitelisting.

Can you advise what product he is on. If it is one of the heritage products it may not be available

[#5]

Quote from: Oldjim

Quote from: SteveA But my brother is finding that either he can't white list or the system refuses to recognise the whitelisting. Can you advise what product he is on. If it is one of the heritage products it may not be available

Hes on one of the normal BBYW products as far as I know

[#6]

This is what it looks like on my system and all you do is type each address (like the one shown) on a new line then click on update settings at the bottom

[#7]

Quote from: spraxyt

Quote from: SteveA X-Plusnet-Relay: e9a06ec8bd7371fc0048c9fba6e295f1 X-pstn-neptune: 35/35/1.00/87 X-pstn-levels:     (S: 1.13784/99.90000 CV:99.0000 ) X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1 X-pstn-addresses: from <steve@my.domain.here> [db-null] X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine X-pn-pstn: Spam 1 X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by Plusnet MXCore (v4.00) Subject: [-SPAM-] templating system Quote from: Anotherone In this particular case as the score is not high but seems to be above the threshold of your settings, it's going to be interesting to see what PN have to say. The message contains the X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine header which causes 20 to be subtracted from the spam score S before comparison with the threshold, so rating it Spam 1 is correct. However the presence of an X-Plusnet-Relay: header (assuming the value is valid) should override spam tagging. Tagging appears to me not to be working as designed. I'll flag this up to PN.

Thanks for the info spraxyt, however, the question also still seems to remain as to WHY is that X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine header there in this mail in the first place?
Regards.

[#8]

Quote from: Anotherone

Thanks for the info spraxyt, however, the question also still seems to remain as to WHY is that X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine header there in this mail in the first place? Regards.

That is a good question. I guess the problem is that if we knew how Neptune worked so would every self-respecting spammer, making it ineffective.

[#9]

..............if we knew how Neptune "worked" ..........  Hmmm.
My rhetorical question is I suppose based on the unstated question.

[#10]

Quote from: SteveA

OK can anyone explain why the plusnet system has decided that the following email is spam? I've included the bottom part of the headers which include the DSPAM tags from my own email server which uses plusnet as a relay host.

It has the relay hash and has been sent via our smtp servers, but I'm guessing the munged address is one of your hosted domains? I'm going to need to follow this up next week as my memory's a little hazy, but I don't think the PN > PN automatic whitelisting works with hosted domains. It certainly looks that way from this due to the absence of the [org-good] and the presence [db-null] in the headers.

Quote

Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:41:54 +0100 Message-ID: <k8je941din7sgsbqn01c4q1sa1s64upvlp@4ax.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted X-DSPAM-Processed: Mon Aug  4 19:41:54 2008 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9979 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 48974d7239577923088037 X-Plusnet-Relay: e9a06ec8bd7371fc0048c9fba6e295f1 X-pstn-neptune: 35/35/1.00/87 X-pstn-levels:     (S: 1.13784/99.90000 CV:99.0000 ) X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1 X-pstn-addresses: from <steve@my.domain.here> [db-null] X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine X-pn-pstn: Spam 1 X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00) Subject: [-SPAM-] templating system Can you remind me what the templating system is called again? Thought I'd remind you of the URL for the canalplan system on this box which is canalplan.tty.org.uk and the blog is at  http://canalplan.blogdns.com/canalplanac/

Quote from: spraxyt

The message contains the X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine header which causes 20 to be subtracted from the spam score S before comparison with the threshold, so rating it Spam 1 is correct.

I thought it deducted 7? Perhaps that's something else I need to brush up on?

[#11]

Bob,
I'm happy to give you the complete unmunged headers with all the other bits in the middle if that will help.
It seems that the spam filters are going crazy as its flagged the following message as spam:

Quote

The downtrodden masses are bring liberated by glorious Soviet Red Arrny under the great leadership of  General Secretary Putin. Ah, the good old days, 1956, 1968...... And only our politicians are surprised.....

Now unless its purely because PlusNet have decided that the senders ISP (Tiscali) is a spammer  can anyone explain why that email is spam?