*SPAM* Filter borked,
gbnewby at pglaf.org
Thu May 20 14:45:16 PDT 2021
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:27:15PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> I sent 4 or 5 messages to the list in the last few hours and all of them have been flagged as 'spam' and rejected.
The good news is that your messages are getting through to the list, Punk.
You can find them in the archive, here: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-May/date.html
Look below for the reason. It appears that tfwno.gf (or maybe an intermediate domain used for email) landed some of the blacklists.
If this persists, I can look at adjusting the spam filter rules on the cpunks.org server. I'm not a fan of blacklists, because getting on them is easy (especially for small operators like me) and getting off them is hard, and the blacklists tend to have almost no capacity to respond to inquiries when there is a false positive.
You might want to forward the analysis below to your system's admins, in case they are motivated to try to get off the blacklists. That would be my first recommendation.
My second recommendation is to give this a couple of days, in case the blacklisting expires or is rescinded.
If issues persist, though, I can try to tweak the rules on the cpunks server. Right now it's using the default spamassassin settings that came with Ubuntu. Generally, spamassassin does a pretty good job at spotting spam, and until now I don't think it has complained about cypherpunks lists traffic.
Greg (cpunks list maintainer)
PS: As far as I can tell, Karl puts [spam] in his own subject lines. That doesn't seem to be coming from the mailing list server. Please send me a clue, if this isn't correct.
> 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: I sent 4 or 5 messages to the list in the last few hours
> and all of them have been flagged as 'spam' and rejected.
> Content analysis details: (5.3 points, 4.0 required)
> pts rule name description
> ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was
> blocked. See
> for more information.
> [URIs: tfwno.gf]
> -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
> [score: 0.0000]
> 3.3 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
> [188.8.131.52 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
> 0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
> DNSWL was blocked. See
> for more information.
> [184.108.40.206 listed in list.dnswl.org]
> 1.3 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
> [Blocked - see <https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?220.127.116.11>]
> -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
> -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
> 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
> author's domain
> 1.3 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL RBL: Relay in Validity RPBL,
> [18.104.22.168 listed in bl.score.senderscore.com]
> 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
> 0.5 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
More information about the cypherpunks