[Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches

[Charlotte Webb]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I
> found a legacy entry in the "Always accept posts from these
> non-members" filter for anthere at wikimedia.org...  Well, I removed that
> line now, as Anthere is not using a @wikimedia.org address anymore.

I realize we shouldn't be white-listing by domain name, but if a
garden variety spam-bot was able to convincingly spoof the return
address, imagine the confusion a real person could have caused.

> X-Spam-Score: 7.9 (+++++++)
> X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system
> "lily.knams.wikimedia.org", has
> 	identified this incoming email as possible spam. If you have any
> 	questions, see the administrator of that system for details.
> 	Content analysis details:   (7.9 points, 4.0 required)
> 	pts rule name              description
> 	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> 	3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL            RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
> 	[201.244.70.114 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
> 	0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB      RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server
> 	[201.244.70.114 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
> 	1.5 URIBL_JP_SURBL         Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist
> 	[URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn]
> 	1.1 SORTED_RECIPS          Recipient list is sorted by address
> 	0.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
> 	[score: 0.4995]
> 	1.5 URIBL_SBL              Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
> 	[URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn]
> 	0.1 RDNS_NONE              Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS

I think David Gerard said human postings generally do not score above
2.0 unless their vocabulary suggests a background in SEO, then it's
higher.

—C.W.