spamassassin misclassifies the Face header

spamassassin misclassifies the Face header

[Jason R. Mastaler]

Or, one more reason why spamassassin sucks.

Beware that if you include the new Face header in your messages, they
might be misclassified by spamassassin as spam.

``Bulk email software fingerprints found in headers''

Here is the report from one of my messages which got caught by
spamassassin on Gmane.

X-Spam-Report: 5 hits, 5 required;
  * -1.0 -- Found a User-Agent header
  * -0.1 -- Found a References header
  *  4.6 -- Bulk email software fingerprints found in headers
  *  0.0 -- Possibly-forged 'Received:' header found
  *  1.5 -- BODY: Asks you to click below

I've filed a spamassassin bug report about this, so hopefully it will
be addressed.

Re: spamassassin misclassifies the Face header

[A.J. Rossini]

"Jason R. Mastaler" <jason@mastaler.com> writes:

> Or, one more reason why spamassassin sucks.
>
> Beware that if you include the new Face header in your messages, they
> might be misclassified by spamassassin as spam.
>
> ``Bulk email software fingerprints found in headers''
>

Cool!  I was wondering why my "tame" email to a gateway.com address
got classified as spam (other than the rest of it discussed purchasing
Debian-based computers from them :-).
 

-- 
A.J. Rossini				Rsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics
U. of Washington Biostatistics		rossini@u.washington.edu	
FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net	rossini@scharp.org
-------------- http://software.biostat.washington.edu/ ----------------
FHCRC: M: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use Email
UW:   Th: 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX
(my tuesday/wednesday/friday locations are completely unpredictable.)

Re: spamassassin misclassifies the Face header

[Jason R. Mastaler]

rossini@blindglobe.net (A.J. Rossini) writes:

> Cool!  I was wondering why my "tame" email to a gateway.com address
> got classified as spam

But your messages don't contain _Face_ headers do they? I haven't
found X-Face headers to be a problem in the past.

I think all the base64 encoded output is what's tripping spamassassin
up.

Re: spamassassin misclassifies the Face header

[A.J. Rossini]

"Jason R. Mastaler" <jason@mastaler.com> writes:


> rossini@blindglobe.net (A.J. Rossini) writes:
>
>> Cool!  I was wondering why my "tame" email to a gateway.com address
>> got classified as spam
>
> But your messages don't contain _Face_ headers do they? I haven't
> found X-Face headers to be a problem in the past.

I can't think of any other reason it got classified, though...


-- 
A.J. Rossini				Rsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics
U. of Washington Biostatistics		rossini@u.washington.edu	
FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net	rossini@scharp.org
-------------- http://software.biostat.washington.edu/ ----------------
FHCRC: M: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use Email
UW:   Th: 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX
(my tuesday/wednesday/friday locations are completely unpredictable.)