Large emails being tagged as spam - false positives

[Scott Silva]

Kash, Howard (Civ, ARL/CISD) spake the following on 10/2/2006 9:49 AM:
>  
>> And hopefully the new more complex settings of Max SpamAssassin Size 
>> that you can use if you want, will help to alleviate the problem. Take
> a 
>> look at the Change Log.
> 
> But there's still no way to say "I don't think there will ever be a spam
> over 100k, so don't bother sending any messages over 100k to SA since
> they could potentially be blocked as false positives."  The message the
> original poster on this topic complained about was blocked based mostly
> on header checks - changing the amount of the body that was sent to SA
> wouldn't have made any difference.  The only way to have avoided this
> false positive would be an option to not send messages over a certain
> size to SA.  I still advocate a "Max SpamAssassin Size = ### skip"
> option so that any messages over ### bytes bypasses the SA checks.  Some
> people may not agree with this, but it should be an option the user has
> at their disposal.
> 
> 
> Howard
Then you will be the first one on the list of quarter meg spam!
A spammer will do whatever he can to get his junk across the most accounts
possible. It is just "spray and pray", and hope you get someone to buy your
crap. If the spammer has to send larger messages to assure that he gets more
"views", then he will do just that.
If the problem is that a certain MailScanner user wants to accept mail from
dial-up addresses and open proxies, then just turn off the spamassassin tests
for those occurances. Or make the users authenticate first, and they won't hit
those traps. You don't have to do a complete re-write of a program so it makes
it easier to do something the wrong way.
 I have users that send from dial-up accounts, and dsl and cable addresses.
But they have to smtp-auth first, and they have no problems, because then they
are trusted.

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!