|
FastMail Forum All posts relating to FastMail.FM should go here: suggestions, comments, requests for help, complaints, technical issues etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
24 Apr 2019, 01:43 PM | #31 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,458
|
|
27 Apr 2019, 08:27 PM | #32 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8
|
I have a FreeBSD server that runs a daily security check and emails the result. There are numerous brute-force SSH attempts with suspicious reverse DNS which seems to trip a lot of the filters. Sometimes VADESPAM appears with a +5 increment tipping over my custom threshold of 8. If if it weren't for VADESPAM false positives would be highly unlikely.
I think FM should ditch VADESPAM. Using this thread as a reference it doesn't seem to benefit its users. Furthermore it's a proprietary black box check. Transparency in spam filtering is key; I like to fully understand how spam scores are being derived for each message. This is one of the key reasons I dislike Gmail. |
27 Apr 2019, 09:12 PM | #33 | |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 545
|
Based on my experience (see posts above), I think changing its score to +2 would make it useful without being overwhelming.
I see no evidence that it shouldn't be added to the bag of tools. The problem is that with a score of +5, FM is basically saying that a positive hit is absolutely always correct. Quote:
We don't know how many users FM has, but it's plainly obvious that far under 1% ever post here -- probably far under 1% of 1%. Happy users aren't talking about VADESPAM. This thread is extremely lopsided for the combination of these reasons. Edward |
|
30 Apr 2019, 06:02 AM | #34 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 278
|
ME_VADESPAM works well for me, I've seen a few FPs on the rule, but they all occurred in a single 4 day period in December, so I'm willing to put that down to teething problems.
Scoring it at 5.0 is not saying that anything that hits the rule will be treated as spam, if you have a well-trained Bayes most of your ham should have a negative score. VADE is a full spam filter in its own right; IMO it doesn't make any sense to score it below 4.2 or it can't help with spams that go though SA hitting nothing but BAYES_50. |
30 Apr 2019, 07:37 AM | #35 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 278
|
Quote:
You are emailing text that probably contains the hostnames of compromised servers, some of which may have been controled by spammers or used for hosting malware. There may also be anomalies in your setup that suggest it's not a well run mail server. Bear in mind that Fastmail is very lax about what they accept via their MTA and will accept things that most mail servers would reject outright. |
|
30 Apr 2019, 07:42 AM | #36 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
Here's a snippet of the spam hits header: Code:
X-Spam-score: 8.7 X-Spam-hits: BAYES_00 -1.9, ME_FROM_EQ_TO 0.01, ME_NOAUTH 0.01, ME_NOAUTH_FROM_EQ_TO 1.5, ME_VADESPAM 5, ME_ZS_CLEAN -0.001, URIBL_DBL_SPAM 3, URI_HEX 1.122, LANGUAGES unknown, BAYES_USED user, SA_VERSION 3.4.2 |
|
19 May 2019, 01:28 AM | #37 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,458
|
|