Ramdas Phutane wrote:
> On 4/19/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Michael Monnerie wrote:
>>> On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote:
>>>
I'm getting a bunch of these
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML
On 4/19/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Monnerie wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote:
> >
> >> I'm getting a bunch of these
> >> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
> >> tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001
> >>
> >
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote:
>
>> I'm getting a bunch of these
>> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
>> tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001
>>
>
> Your message gave me:
>
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.75 t
On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote:
> I'm getting a bunch of these
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
> tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001
Your message gave me:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=DRUGS_ERECTI
Let's put it this way - here are the rules your message hit on my system:
Carl Chipman wrote:
>
> Content analysis details: (8.2 points, 5.0 required)
>
> 3.5 SUBJECT_DRUG_GAP_VIA
> -4.9 BAYES_00
> 0.4 URIBL_AB_SURBL
> 1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL
> 3.2 URIBL_OB_SU
> tests=BAYES_50:
> Is there a ruleset I could use add that might increase the chance of
> catching theses?
You can start by training Bayes that these are spam, it will help you a lot.
If you don't have the SARE rules, several of the files there will also help.
Loren
I'm getting a bunch of these
* V a l / u m $ l , 2 1*
M e r / d i a
X & n a x
S o m &
* C / a l i s $ 3 , 7 5*
A m b / e n
* V / a g r a $ 3 , 3 l*
http://www.desirominnam.com
going through my spam filters, and it's only being scored thusly:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0
