*SPAM* RE: Dan Kaminsky Dies from Vaccine
gmkarl at gmail.com
Fri Apr 30 04:06:40 PDT 2021
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:49 PM lolwut <lolwut9001 at cock.li> wrote:
> 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
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 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
> [Blocked - see <
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: 220.127.116.11 .
Points are now -0.6 .
0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
> DNSWL was blocked. See
> for more information.
> [18.104.22.168 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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)
> [22.214.171.124 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.
1.3 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL RBL: Relay in Validity RPBL,
> [126.96.36.199 listed in
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
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK
> -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
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 at cock.li>
> To: <cypherpunks at lists.cpunks.org>
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:48:29 -0400
> Subject: RE: Dan Kaminsky Dies from Vaccine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cypherpunks [mailto:cypherpunks-bounces at lists.cpunks.org] On Behalf
> Shawn K. Quinn
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 April, 2021 9:36 PM
> To: cypherpunks at 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
> >Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 13329 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the cypherpunks