Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-04 Thread Adam Katz
On 03/04/2011 04:11 PM, jdow wrote: > We, it IS a small number by Nigerian scam standards. So why not > a small score? > > - She ran that way FAST{O,o} Likewise, I also enjoy weekends: http://i.imgur.com/cxX6t.jpg (mildly NSFW, though it's on my cube)

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-04 Thread jdow
We, it IS a small number by Nigerian scam standards. So why not a small score? - She ran that way FAST {O,o} On 2011/03/03 16:40, Dennis German wrote: Can someone comment on the low score assigned to the email located at http://www.cccu.us/hundre

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-04 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:19 -0500, Dennis German wrote: > "while the OP uses" OP means ? Original Poster, he who started the thread. Depending on context, it also can mean Original Post. > Please direct me to info on FreeMail plugin. > Is it expected that I will be able to implement it given I

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-04 Thread Adam Moffett
"while the OP uses" OP means ? Original Poster.

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-04 Thread Dennis German
On 3/3/11 8:06 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 01:53 +0100, Mikael Syska wrote: I get the following hits: Content analysis details: (19.1 points, 5.0 required) Note though, that your score is on SA 3.3.x, while the OP uses SA 3.2.x. Yes, I can tell this from the scores. :)

Supporting 3.3 and 3.2? (was: Re: low score for ($1.5Million))

2011-03-03 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:52 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > On 3/3/2011 3:06 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > Note though, that your score is on SA 3.3.x, while the OP uses SA 3.2.x. > > Yes, I can tell this from the scores. :) > > > > Major changes between these version are clearly reflected

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-03 Thread Warren Togami Jr.
On 3/3/2011 3:06 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 01:53 +0100, Mikael Syska wrote: I get the following hits: Content analysis details: (19.1 points, 5.0 required) Note though, that your score is on SA 3.3.x, while the OP uses SA 3.2.x. Yes, I can tell this from the scores

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-03 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 01:53 +0100, Mikael Syska wrote: > I get the following hits: > Content analysis details: (19.1 points, 5.0 required) Note though, that your score is on SA 3.3.x, while the OP uses SA 3.2.x. Yes, I can tell this from the scores. :) Major changes between these version are cl

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-03 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 19:40 -0500, Dennis German wrote: > Can someone comment on the low score assigned to the email located at > > http://www.cccu.us/hundredThousand.txt > > X-Spam-testscores: AWL=1.086,BAYES_00=-2.599,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, > MILLION_USD=1.528 > > Is my bayes "broken"? I'd

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-03 Thread Adam Katz
On 03/03/2011 04:40 PM, Dennis German wrote: > Can someone comment on the low score assigned to the email located at > > http://www.cccu.us/hundredThousand.txt > > X-Spam-testscores: AWL=1.086,BAYES_00=-2.599,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, > MILLION_USD=1.528 > > Is my bayes "broken"? Not "broken" so

Re: low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-03 Thread Mikael Syska
Hi, I get the following hits: Content analysis details: (19.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low

low score for ($1.5Million)

2011-03-03 Thread Dennis German
Can someone comment on the low score assigned to the email located at http://www.cccu.us/hundredThousand.txt X-Spam-testscores: AWL=1.086,BAYES_00=-2.599,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MILLION_USD=1.528 Is my bayes "broken"?