Spam detection software, running on the system "avery.infomotions.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see eric_morgan_at_infomotions.com for details. Content preview: I'm very much a reader/lurker on this list, so I don't know much about the bigger structures. I'm very much in favor of a statement along these lines. My question is about the teeth to it. When we look to who it will come from, do they have the ability to kick offenders off the list, or some other mechanism of response? Action seems to be needed now, and so in addition to a statement, I'd like to see behavior contrary to the statement having visible consequences. I think that'd add significance to whatever statement appears. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.9 points, -1.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source [209.85.214.54 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (patrickmjchnm[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different 0.0 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
attached mail follows:
I'm very much a reader/lurker on this list, so I don't know much about the bigger structures. I'm very much in favor of a statement along these lines. My question is about the teeth to it. When we look to who it will come from, do they have the ability to kick offenders off the list, or some other mechanism of response? Action seems to be needed now, and so in addition to a statement, I'd like to see behavior contrary to the statement having visible consequences. I think that'd add significance to whatever statement appears. Patrick Murray-John On 11/14/2016 06:00 PM, Tara Wood wrote: > Absolutely! > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Salazar, Christina < > christina.salazar_at_csuci.edu> wrote: > >> So can we see the samples - LITA's and NMRT's? And I'm also wondering who >> will be responsible for sending it out (i.e., who will it "come from") - >> C4L's "organization" being such that it is. >> Christina Salazar >> Broome Library >> CSU Channel Islands >> (PS I live in California where our Senate President Pro Tem and Assembly >> Speaker made a statement in regards to the US's current political >> situation, and their statement kept me personally from TOTALLY losing it. I >> believe a statement will make clear what otherwise might be an unknown for >> some.) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB_at_LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf Of >> Kim, Bohyun >> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 1:05 PM >> To: CODE4LIB_at_LISTS.CLIR.ORG >> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Post-election statement affirming diversity from >> Code4Lib? >> >> Hi Code4Libbers, >> >> What do you think about issuing a post-election statement on diversity >> basically affirming that we stand by it? >> >> If that _IS_ the majority opinion in Code4Lib which I am _POSITIVE_ that >> it is, then I want to hear it and I think others may well! >> >> I just drafted one for LITA (to be out tomorrow hopefully). So I have some >> wordings that I can offer as a starting point. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Bohyun >> >> >Received on Mon Nov 14 2016 - 19:14:49 EST