Spam detection software, running on the system "mail.pglaf.org",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview:
It's obviously important that automated engines make their information clear to non-technical people. There is a lot of active ongoing work around that.
I'm not sure if there is as much work on the topic of making sure people have a reliable path to relate their needs to the algorithms, to fix the algorothms when they are wrong. That's equally important.
Content analysis details: (4.3 points, 4.0 required)
It's saying it added and subtracted some numbers, has been configured to block emails where the sum is greater than 4, and this sum was 4.3 .
It starts with 0 points.
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
It subtracted 1.9 because this metric said the email was not spam. I think Bayes is statistical guesses that update themselves based on new information. They said 0% probability of spam.
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
The points stayed at -1.9 . I think this metric says you are not pretending to be somebody else.
1.3 points were added because a blacklisted relay sent the email. The server is configured to check
spamcop.net for blacklisted mail relays. The address of the blacklisted relay is thr numbers in the url: 37.120.193.123 .
Points are now -0.6 .
This is hitting another blocklist on the same ip address, but since the metric's points are configured to be 0 it doesn't affect the score.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[37.120.193.123 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
This also didn't affect the score, but also indicates that the same relay ip is in another filtering database.
This is another filtering database. It raises the score to 0.7 .
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
No points change.
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
This is a fudge whoever configured the filter made, to slightly help emails with dkim signatures. It drops the spam score 0.6 .
0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
Score rises to 1.4 . Looks like it's configured to have this happen when an address doesn't reverse lookup. In my opinion, this is a metric that is clearly biased against private mail setups, and should likely be removed.
2.8 DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with Outlook headers
Score rises to 4.2, preventing delivery. The name "DOS" in the metric implies it is there to protect against denial of service attacks.
I don't really know what the metric does, but since you're behaving sketchily, that's all I'm saying immediately, but it's probably easy to figure out. The concern would be a virus affecting users of outlook.
What's important is that the email was blocked because the headers say it was sent with Outlook. Outlook is known to work with a corporate mafia and a national government. It's really important to use a safer mail client. Of course, I am using gmail, myself, which has the same issue.
Rather than blocking the email, the server should tell the poster to use a safer client, and link them to one.
I'm thinking on that myself. What would help me get off gmail? What would help others get off windows? Questions to think on.
There's clearly an error here since I got a sum of 4.2 and the system got one of 4.3 .
Sorry for the coercion, still learning to stop. Gotta be workable ways to call that out.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: lolwut <lolwut9001@cock.li>
To: <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:48:29 -0400
Subject: RE: Dan Kaminsky Dies from Vaccine
-----Original Message-----
From: cypherpunks [mailto:cypherpunks-bounces@lists.cpunks.org] On Behalf Of
Shawn K. Quinn
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April, 2021 9:36 PM
To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
Subject: Re: *SPAM* RE: DAN KAMINSKY DIES FROM VACCINE
>On 4/28/21 16:50, lolwut wrote:
>> Shawn, you should take a look at [link removed]
>I looked at it, and it looks like the typical conspiracy theory horseshit.
>COVID-19 is real, it can definitely kill you, and it is definitely "not
just the flu". Thankfully, the pandemic (note, no "l") appears to be almost
over.
>--
>Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
>http://www.rantroulette.com
>http://www.skqrecordquest.com
It's fine that you disagree, and it's fine that you call it "conspiracy
theory horseshit", but don't be a dick and deliberately tell everyone that
you've removed (read: censored) the link with "[link removed]" when quoting
my previous message. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html You
can trim out quoted sections for purposes of brevity, of course, but it's
clear in this instance that that wasn't your aim.
https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html In prior messages with
Punk, I recall, you also seemed quite keen in obsessively and condescending
"correcting" his messages when quoting him (e.g., if he wrote "jew", you
would replace it with "[Jew]") as a cheap and easy way to look like the
smart one. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html
Even if you don't agree with the statement of the author of that page that
the coronavirus isn't real, that isn't the entire content of the page.
https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html I personally think that it
is real, and that it can kill you, but not any more than the seasonal flu;
and that, regardless of its actual danger, the lockdowns cannot be
justified. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html