IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] warning

sthaug@nethelp.no Sun, 18 December 2016 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D38F12947A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 04:28:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46v7NbplATy7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 04:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB4F1200A0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 04:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928D5E6065; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:28:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:28:03 +0100
Message-Id: <20161218.132803.74728251.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: ac@main.me
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <20161218113535.593CB129436@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20161218051417.A61B6129B40@ietfa.amsl.com> <201612180759.uBI7xU3r028318@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20161218113535.593CB129436@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iXt7FMMuV1GUmuBa2yw9OH2LB_w>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] warning
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 12:28:07 -0000

> Regarding "Message-ID header"  - factually, over 80% of all spam 
> (I have not bothered to do the actual number check, it is probably closer
> to 99.99% but I am erring on the side of caution - as this is science
> and not opinion, it is what it is)
>  
> - All contain a Message-ID header. 

You're saying that most spam messages contain a Message-ID header. This
is not in conflict with what vjs wrote:

> Among the 399 messages sent toward vjs@rhyolite.com in the last 24
> hours (usual weekend decrease), 43 or more than 10% lacked Message-ID
> headers.  For fun, I looked at all 43 and found only the single false
> positive, for a false positive rate of 0.023%, which is both not bad
> and 10X or 100X higher (worse) than usual.

so he's saying that most messages without a Message-ID header is spam.

>From my own statistics, I'd have to agree - lack of a Message-ID header
is indeed a strong predictor of spam.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status