Tim wrote:
> Another mitigating factor is the domain name that you post from.
> Certain top-level-domains get red flagged as being more likely to be
> spam, simply by the name, regardless of content. e.g. Spamassassin,
> IGNORANTLY, does that with .biz and .info TLDs. I say that with such
> venom because in the years that I've been on the internet, and in the
> thousands of spam that I've received, I've noticed about seven spams
> that came with .biz TLDs in them.
I came up with some egrep regular expressions to look for .biz and .info
URLs, and applied them to my spam box.
Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
> I don't quite understand what the http:// bit does in your command.
> That checks for URLs embedded in the mail but Tim was talking about TLDs
> where the mail originated.
Oops! I think I made a mental connection that I shouldn't have made.
As far as I can tell, SpamAssassin *does* score on URLs embedded in the
spam itself. But it doesn't score on the (often forged) From: addresses.
(I'm using the latest 3.1.7, but it wasn't on 3.1.3).
> Of my 37414 collected spams, 5018 or about 13.4% (supposedly) came from
> a .biz domain and 164 (0.4%) from a .info domain. Of the 22249 hams,
> the numbers were 4 and 10 (0.02% and 0.04%) respectively. This is
> looking at the From headers.
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | Anonymous: What do you think of Stainer's
aprilcottage.co.uk | "Crucifixion"?
| Sir Thomas Beecham: Good idea!
