 |
 |
Even the messages from ATS about the progress of the new mail system are marked that way. Even those that apparently score 0 out of 5 on their spam scale get that treatment. For today I was planning to just enjoy the irony, and in a day or so call it to their attention if they didn't get around to noticing it themselves. John Gorentz W.K. Kellogg Biological Station At 02:24 PM 12/22/2008, David McFarlane wrote: >And for the record, I see that my own post to MSUNAG about "possible spam" messages also got labelled as "possible spam". So it goes. > >-- dkm > > >At 12/22/2008 02:21 PM Monday, David McFarlane wrote: >>OK, what's going on? First a post from Victor Lounds, and then one from Lee Duynslager labelled as "possible spam" (see copied header below), and I suspect this is just the beginning. Did we change something to the campus spam filter to create a bunch of false positves, or do we just have a rash of users coincidentaly sending messages that look like spam? >> >>Thanks, >>-- dkm >> >> >>At 12/22/2008 01:59 PM Monday, Lee Duynslager wrote: >>>X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "mx56.mail.msu.edu", has >>> identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message >>> has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label >>> similar future email. If you have any questions, see >>> [log in to unmask] for details. >>> Content preview: I've already called the helpdesk about this. Does anybody >>> know the maximum attachment size for the new MSU webmail? From what the attachment >>> upload screen shows it is 2mb. Is that a mistake, because before our users >>> could send 10mb of attachments right? [...] >>> Content analysis details: (-1.0 points, 5.0 required) >>> pts rule name description >>> ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- >>> -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low >>> trust >>> [35.8.2.205 listed in list.dnswl.org] >>> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message