Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (9)
to Community by nokiafemboy - 3 hrs, 40 mins ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (18)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 19 hrs, 4 mins ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 2 days, 14 hrs ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 2 days, 14 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 17 hrs ago - more...
asidana |
2009-12-17
, 20:41
|
|
Posts: 279 |
Thanked: 95 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#1
|
has anyone noticed such thing? can some one else test it?
|
|
2009-12-17
, 21:29
|
|
Posts: 279 |
Thanked: 95 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#3
|
thats not the point. it should not got in to junk. if i send same email from my pc it doesn't
 |
|
2009-12-17
, 22:02
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#4
|
It's probably because it doesn't recognize or it has an abusive/wrong filter related to sender-client header.
Mine has:
X-Mailer: Modest 3.0
It's also possible that, if you use the PC as a gateway and the N900 as a client on the internal LAN that you have the issue of IPs.
The messages may get spam if the server sees that your declared IP doesn't match the actual IP. My phone, e.g., has 192.168.16.100 (16 is the WIFI NAT sublan) and the PC is <insert routable IP here>. The server sees you are "lying" about your IP and marks it as suspicious.
Just a few thoughts.
Mine has:
X-Mailer: Modest 3.0
It's also possible that, if you use the PC as a gateway and the N900 as a client on the internal LAN that you have the issue of IPs.
The messages may get spam if the server sees that your declared IP doesn't match the actual IP. My phone, e.g., has 192.168.16.100 (16 is the WIFI NAT sublan) and the PC is <insert routable IP here>. The server sees you are "lying" about your IP and marks it as suspicious.
Just a few thoughts.
|
|
2009-12-18
, 23:03
|
|
Posts: 279 |
Thanked: 95 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#5
|
here is some more info. look at below mail. only subject is missing and it marked as spam by spamassasin
Code:
Return-Path: <##snip##> X-Envelope-To: ##snip## X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00: -1.665,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD: 2.255,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY: 0.214,MISSING_MIMEOLE: 1.612,MISSING_SUBJECT: 1.816, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER: 0,NO_REAL_NAME: 0.961,TOTAL_SCORE: 5.194 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: ***** Received: from blu0-omc1-s5.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.16]) by ##snip## for ##snip##; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:32:21 +0000 Received: from BLU0-SMTP78 ([65.55.116.9]) by blu0-omc1-s5.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:32:16 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [##snip##] X-Originating-Email: [##snip##] Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP788E8C220A84908DE9E395F4850@phx.gbl> Return-Path: ##snip## Received: from [192.168.1.70] ([##snip##]) by BLU0-SMTP78.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:32:15 -0800 From: m##snip## Reply-To: ##snip## To: ##snip## X-Mailer: Modest 3.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-JNJA9uPW4zsx3yCzFzhj" X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:30:34 +0000 X-Original-Subject: Subject: **POSSIBLE SPAM** Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2009 21:32:15.0932 (UTC) FILETIME=[91A9CFC0:01CA8029]
|
|
2009-12-19
, 01:53
|
|
Posts: 236 |
Thanked: 223 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ NE UK
|
#6
|
Thanks for the info. We can see the reasons this got marked this as spam. Let's try and de-FUD.
It seems most of this is not n900's fault.
The major contributor is the FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD (score 2.55) category,. This seems to be a known, old problem with spamassassin, see, for example: http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18572 (I'm not conversant with spamassassin, but perhaps the version doing the scoring here is quite old? The link above is from 2007!)
In any case, it's nothing to do with the N900, it just means spamassassin failed to realise the hotmail hostnames in the Received: headers are genuine.
MISSING_SUBJECT: 1.816: The email Subject: header has no content. This is just a user error. Put the subject in! It's basic email common sense. Dumb threaded clients used by your recipients will lump your emails together with all kinds of nonsense if you don't.
NO_REAL_NAME: 0.961 : Just means that there is no real name in the From: header. i.e. it's like 'From: user@host.domain.com', rather than 'From: "Joe User" <user@host.domain.com>'. If there's a place in modest to configure your real name, you would presumably avoid this score (see: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/NO_REAL_NAME). Avoidable by configuring a real name
Fixing any of the above would avoid getting junked. The three items together account for well over half the negative score.
The remaining categories:
HTML_TITLE_EMPTY: 0.214,
MISSING_MIMEOLE: 1.612,
Do seem to be things that modest could maybe avoid by doing html mail better. I don't really know much about these.
Disclaimer: I admit I haven't used modest at all (I use gmail via the browser, which works well enough for me
)
Last edited by kwotski; 2009-12-19 at 02:04.
Code:X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00: -1.665, FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD: 2.255, HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY: 0.214, MISSING_MIMEOLE: 1.612, MISSING_SUBJECT: 1.816, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER: 0, NO_REAL_NAME: 0.961, TOTAL_SCORE: 5.194
The major contributor is the FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD (score 2.55) category,. This seems to be a known, old problem with spamassassin, see, for example: http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18572 (I'm not conversant with spamassassin, but perhaps the version doing the scoring here is quite old? The link above is from 2007!)
In any case, it's nothing to do with the N900, it just means spamassassin failed to realise the hotmail hostnames in the Received: headers are genuine.
MISSING_SUBJECT: 1.816: The email Subject: header has no content. This is just a user error. Put the subject in! It's basic email common sense. Dumb threaded clients used by your recipients will lump your emails together with all kinds of nonsense if you don't.
NO_REAL_NAME: 0.961 : Just means that there is no real name in the From: header. i.e. it's like 'From: user@host.domain.com', rather than 'From: "Joe User" <user@host.domain.com>'. If there's a place in modest to configure your real name, you would presumably avoid this score (see: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/NO_REAL_NAME). Avoidable by configuring a real name
Fixing any of the above would avoid getting junked. The three items together account for well over half the negative score.
The remaining categories:
HTML_TITLE_EMPTY: 0.214,
MISSING_MIMEOLE: 1.612,
Do seem to be things that modest could maybe avoid by doing html mail better. I don't really know much about these.
Disclaimer: I admit I haven't used modest at all (I use gmail via the browser, which works well enough for me
)
Last edited by kwotski; 2009-12-19 at 02:04.