Mailscanner does not identify attachment in mail

Fri May 5 11:05:02 IST 2006

On Friday, May 05, 2006 10:53 AM Anthony Peacock wrote:

> We would really need to see which SA rules hit.  (Sorry if you
> provided that in an earlier post, I didn't keep a copy). 

5.00	BAYES_99	Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
0.34	FB_SINGLE_0WORD	 
1.01	FB_SINGLE_1WORD	 
1.39	FB_WORD2_END_DOLLAR	 
0.59	FB_WORD_01DOLLAR2	 
1.25	FH_RELAY_NODNS	 
1.10	FM_MULTI_ODD2	 
0.70	FM_MULTI_ODD3	 
0.70	FM_MULTI_ODD4	 
0.90	FM_MULTI_ODD5	 
3.20	FM_N0N0_WORDS	 
0.55	HELO_MISMATCH_COM	 
0.96	NO_REAL_NAME	From: does not include a real name
2.10	OBSCURED_EMAIL	Message seems to contain rot13ed address
0.99	RELAY_IS_203	 
2.00	SARE_RAND_6	 
0.42	SARE_RMML_Stock9	 
5.00	SARE_URI_EQUALS	 
2.00	SPF_FAIL	SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
2.80	UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY	Message written in an undesired language
0.37	UPPERCASE_50_75	message body is 50-75% uppercase
1.37	USERPASS	URL contains username and (optional) password
0.21	X_AUTH_WARN_FAKED	X-Authentication-Warning header looks faked

> I doubt whether it is the fact that it is a UUencoded post is the
> only factor. 

Not the only factor I agree. But BAYES_99, SARE_*, UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY,
UPPERCASE etc. surely are due to uuencoded text since that is the only thing
in the body.

Regards,
  JP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3104 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20060505/cf639811/smime.bin