Epic amounts of spam

Mwongozi · 27 Feb 2014, 11:32 AM

Is the SpamAssassin problem fixed? Because I don't think it is.

Ever since the "problem" I have been been getting about 10ish spams a day landing in my inbox and not being caught by the filter.

I toss them all into SpamCop to see where they're from and they're ALL from burst.net. (Though they all have faked From: addresses.)

Here are the X-Spam headers from just the most recent one:

Code:

X-Spam-score: 3.6
X-Spam-hits: BAYES_99 3.5, BAYES_999 0.2, RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.001, LANGUAGES en,
  BAYES_USED user, SA_VERSION 3.3.2
X-Spam-source: IP='184.22.135.203', Host='carmelpartners.tawfire.com', Country='US',
  FromHeader='com', MailFrom='com'
X-Spam-charsets: plain='us-ascii'

They never score more than 4.0, though they always trigger BAYES_99.

Please save me from the never-ending deluge of crappy spam!

UPDATE:

To pre-emptively answer the question, yes, I am using the "User" spam database, and not global, and I'm marking all these spams as spam in Fastmail as well as sending them to SpamCop.

CyberDyne · 27 Feb 2014, 05:59 PM

The problem appears to have been with the BAYES_999 rule.

http://emaildiscussions.com/showpost...6&postcount=10

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/list.../183590#183590

FM have changed their settings so I would assume the issue is fixed.

If all of your spam is coming from one place, could you not set up a custom rule to discard or at least filter them?

DrStrabismus · 27 Feb 2014, 09:27 PM

I doubt it's anything to do with BAYES_999, Fastmail rescored that pretty quickly and subsequently Spamassassin has redefined it so it's additional to BAYES_99 - see the above example.

If your database is well trained and BAYES isn't misclassifying ham, I'd set-up a rule to filter the higher BAYES results into the spam folder.

27 Feb 2014, 11:32 AM	#1
Mwongozi Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 78	Epic amounts of spam Is the SpamAssassin problem fixed? Because I don't think it is. Ever since the "problem" I have been been getting about 10ish spams a day landing in my inbox and not being caught by the filter. I toss them all into SpamCop to see where they're from and they're ALL from burst.net. (Though they all have faked From: addresses.) Here are the X-Spam headers from just the most recent one: Code: X-Spam-score: 3.6 X-Spam-hits: BAYES_99 3.5, BAYES_999 0.2, RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.001, LANGUAGES en, BAYES_USED user, SA_VERSION 3.3.2 X-Spam-source: IP='184.22.135.203', Host='carmelpartners.tawfire.com', Country='US', FromHeader='com', MailFrom='com' X-Spam-charsets: plain='us-ascii' They never score more than 4.0, though they always trigger BAYES_99. Please save me from the never-ending deluge of crappy spam! UPDATE: To pre-emptively answer the question, yes, I am using the "User" spam database, and not global, and I'm marking all these spams as spam in Fastmail as well as sending them to SpamCop. Last edited by Mwongozi : 27 Feb 2014 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Update

27 Feb 2014, 05:59 PM	#2
CyberDyne Master of the @ Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,583	The problem appears to have been with the BAYES_999 rule. http://emaildiscussions.com/showpost...6&postcount=10 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/list.../183590#183590 FM have changed their settings so I would assume the issue is fixed. If all of your spam is coming from one place, could you not set up a custom rule to discard or at least filter them?

27 Feb 2014, 09:27 PM	#3
DrStrabismus The "e" in e-mail Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,804	I doubt it's anything to do with BAYES_999, Fastmail rescored that pretty quickly and subsequently Spamassassin has redefined it so it's additional to BAYES_99 - see the above example. If your database is well trained and BAYES isn't misclassifying ham, I'd set-up a rule to filter the higher BAYES results into the spam folder.