[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 2208: Array to string conversion
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4688: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3823)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4690: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3823)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4691: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3823)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4692: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3823)
Poco Forums • View topic - Junk Mail Filtering Oddity
Page 1 of 1

Junk Mail Filtering Oddity

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:42 am
by drjamie03
I am getting the same newsletters at two different email addresses, but one of the copies of the newsletter gets filtered as good, and the second as junk. (And, incidently, it IS junk). Here are the headers from both:

This is the header from the one that was NOT filtered as junk:
Code: Select all
From sender(AT)cardfor.com Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:54 -0700
From:     Designer Purse <sender(AT)cardfor.com>
To:        <cardguppy(AT)gmail.com>
X-Gmail-Received: d032fe22631bb554278a4a01011cbd58ead12f70
Delivered-To: seekerenator(AT)gmail.com
Received: by 10.37.13.44 with SMTP id q44cs2844nzi;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.33.15 with SMTP id g15mr5285762nzg;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-To: seekerenator(AT)gmail.com
X-Forwarded-For: cardguppy(AT)gmail.com seekerenator(AT)gmail.com
X-Gmail-Received: 1f88d8fab3731414918bbed8003c7d1b47dc6d05
Delivered-To: cardguppy(AT)gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.49.11 with SMTP id w11cs14691nzw;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.87.13 with SMTP id k13mr620937wxb;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <bounce(AT)cardfor.com>
Received: from www.cardfor.com (cardfor.com [206.131.224.131])
        by mx.gmail.com with SMTP id i11si762346wxd.2005.09.29.11.27.56;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (gmail.com: best guess record for domain of bounce(AT)cardfor.com designates 206.131.224.131 as permitted sender)
X-Mailer: StrongMail Enterprise 3.0.2(2.00.75)
X-MailingID: 112802086030672::LouisVuitton.PEP.Min::0000::::201809::201809
X-Destination-ID: cardguppy(AT)gmail.com
X-VirtualServerGroup: www.cardfor.com
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:54 -0700
Message-ID: <112802086030672.201809(AT)cardfor.com>
Content-Location: LouisVuitton.PEP.Min.html
Content-Disposition: inline
Delivery-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:29:10
Status: U
X-Poco-Score-Detail: +7 [X-POCO-SCORE=+]AND[TO=%EMAIL%]AND[TO=%REPLYTO%]AND[CC=%EMAIL%]AND[CC=%REPLYTO%] (X-Poco-Score +, and To %email%, and To %replyto%, and Cc %email%, and Cc %replyto%)
X-Poco-Score-Detail: +2 [FROM=%ADDRESSBOOKS%] (From %addressbooks%)
X-Poco-Scored: +9
Subject: Free Louis Vuitton Handbag & Wallet!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Poco-UID: 47058084
X-Poco-Status: U
X-Account: Seekerenator


And this is the one for the one what WAS filtered as junk:

Code: Select all
From sender(AT)cardfor.com Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:54 -0700
From:     Designer Purse <sender(AT)cardfor.com>
To:        <cardguppy(AT)gmail.com>
X-Gmail-Received: 1f88d8fab3731414918bbed8003c7d1b47dc6d05
Delivered-To: cardguppy(AT)gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.49.11 with SMTP id w11cs14691nzw;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.87.13 with SMTP id k13mr620937wxb;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <bounce(AT)cardfor.com>
Received: from www.cardfor.com (cardfor.com [206.131.224.131])
        by mx.gmail.com with SMTP id i11si762346wxd.2005.09.29.11.27.56;
        Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (gmail.com: best guess record for domain of bounce(AT)cardfor.com designates 206.131.224.131 as permitted sender)
X-Mailer: StrongMail Enterprise 3.0.2(2.00.75)
X-MailingID: 112802086030672::LouisVuitton.PEP.Min::0000::::201809::201809
X-Destination-ID: cardguppy(AT)gmail.com
X-VirtualServerGroup: www.cardfor.com
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:54 -0700
Message-ID: <112802086030672.201809(AT)cardfor.com>
Content-Location: LouisVuitton.PEP.Min.html
Content-Disposition: inline
Delivery-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:29:12
Status: U
X-Poco-Score-Detail: +20 [%BAYES%=P=97;T=90;BIAS=+20] (%bayes% P=97;T=90;Bias=+20)
X-Poco-Score: +22
X-Poco-Score-Detail: +2 [FROM=%ADDRESSBOOKS%] (From %addressbooks%)
X-Poco-Scored: +22
X-Poco-Score-Exceeds: 10
Subject: Free Louis Vuitton Handbag & Wallet!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Poco-UID: 00614019
X-Poco-Status: U
X-Account: Cardguppy


Any help with figuring this out? I partly want to figure this out because my junk mail filtering has gone way down with the last few betas, with the percentage being listed around the high 80s (though it seems much lower to me...very seldom does Barca get it right these days. Currently, 118 that were filtered as junk, and it also missed 54 with 22 false positives).

~ Removed live email links + added code tags ... Eric ~

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:50 pm
by Michael
The key in analyzing Junk Mail settings are the X-Poco-Score-Detail: headers. They tell you which rules Poco used to set positive (it is junk) or negative (it is not junk) scores. These scores are added up and the resulting total compared to your junk threshold.

In this case basically the first message did not trigger the Bayesian filters while the second one did. It is remotely possible that something happened causing the BF filters not to be activated for the first message but that would be hard to know if you have the good score set to zero (as I suspect you have), in this case Poco does not insert an indication in the message that the BF considered the message not to be junk. Quite sometime ago I changed my setting for good score to "2" so that I can tell that the BF fired for the message. Having said that I no longer go in and check each message to see if BF fired or not but occasionally I do and in those cases they have always fired. (Ironically sometimes the -2 score inserted when the BF think the message is good has sometimes been enough to push a spam message to good status).

Re: Junk Mail Filtering Oddity

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:47 pm
by dribnus
drjamie03 wrote:Any help with figuring this out? I partly want to figure this out because my junk mail filtering has gone way down with the last few betas, with the percentage being listed around the high 80s (though it seems much lower to me...very seldom does Barca get it right these days. Currently, 118 that were filtered as junk, and it also missed 54 with 22 false positives).

I have mentioned this too. Slaven has responded that there will be some tweaking to the BF. I spent a lot of time on getting the BG to do a good job, and they were running 99.8% consistantly for about 6 months. Since the betas, the percentage has dropped to 78%. I checked the 2 .ini files, and the original and the new one that the betas have been using, are pretty much the same.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:22 am
by dribnus
Hey Slaven, I haven't heard any more about this. Has the BF functions been tweaked yet? It seems to still be a problem for my system. Unless I was just getting unusually good results. I have dropped way down on the # of 'junk mails' that the BF catches. I really don't think it has anything to do with spammers doing things differently.