Thanks Matt.
> >I received a spam that got scored only 4.4 yet it had
> >BAYES_80 as well as FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD.
> >
> >I'm not very familiar with how much these tags _should_
> be >scored, but shouldn't a FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD have a
> >reasonably high score? And BAYES_80, typically how much
> do
At 03:19 PM 10/3/2003, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
I don't understand all the
dynamics, but I would have thought that a BAYES_80 with the
FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD would be sufficient for a higher score.
My mistake.
That's ok.. the real dynamics are actually very complex. Even the spam vs
nonspam hitrate c
At 03:05 PM 10/3/2003, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
Hmmm why would you say I'm not using 2.60? Because I am.
I state that because no combination of 2.60's BAYES_80 and
FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD can add to 4.4. The highest those two can add to is 2.942.
Or are there other rules involved that you did not men
At 01:53 PM 10/3/2003, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
I didn't see a response to my original post so I'm posting
again... ;-)
I received a spam that got scored only 4.4 yet it had
BAYES_80 as well as FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD.
I'm not very familiar with how much these tags _should_ be
scored, but shouldn't a FO
Hi,
- Original Message Follows -
>
> At 03:05 PM 10/3/2003, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
>
> >Hmmm why would you say I'm not using 2.60? Because I am.
>
> I state that because no combination of 2.60's BAYES_80 and
> FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD can add to 4.4. The highest those two
> can add to is 2
Hi,
I didn't see a response to my original post so I'm posting
again... ;-)
I received a spam that got scored only 4.4 yet it had
BAYES_80 as well as FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD.
I'm not very familiar with how much these tags _should_ be
scored, but shouldn't a FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD have a
reasonably high
