On Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:49 PM lolwut <[1]lolwut9001@cock.li> wrote: Spam detection software, running on the system "[2]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 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in [3]bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see <[4]https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?37.120.193.123>] 1.3 points were added because a blacklisted relay sent the email. The server is configured to check [5]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 . 0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL was blocked. See [6]http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [37.120.193.123 listed in [7]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) [37.120.193.123 listed in [8]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, [9]https://senderscore.org/blocklistlookup/ [37.120.193.123 listed in [10]bl.score.senderscore.com] 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 <[11]lolwut9001@cock.li> To: <[12]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:[13]cypherpunks-bounces@lists.cpunks.org] On Behalf Of Shawn K. Quinn Sent: Wednesday, 28 April, 2021 9:36 PM To: [14]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 <[15]skquinn@rushpost.com> >[16]http://www.rantroulette.com >[17]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. [18]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. [19]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. [20]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. [21]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. [22]https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html References 1. mailto:lolwut9001@cock.li 2. http://mail.pglaf.org/ 3. http://bl.spamcop.net/ 4. https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?37.120.193.123 5. http://spamcop.net/ 6. http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block 7. http://list.dnswl.org/ 8. http://wl.mailspike.net/ 9. https://senderscore.org/blocklistlookup/ 10. http://bl.score.senderscore.com/ 11. mailto:lolwut9001@cock.li 12. mailto:cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 13. mailto:cypherpunks-bounces@lists.cpunks.org 14. mailto:cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 15. mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com 16. http://www.rantroulette.com/ 17. http://www.skqrecordquest.com/ 18. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html 19. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html 20. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html 21. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html 22. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html