FYI, I've been quite happy with creating two folders Spam (for scores of
8 or higher) and Possible Spam (for scores higher than 5 but lower than
8). This is easily accomplished after SA 2.20 has been run on the mail
by adding the following two rules at the top of Outlook Rules Wizard:
Apply this rule after the message arrives
with "X-Spam-Level: ********" in the message header
move it to the "Spam" folder
and stop processing more rules
Apply this rule after the message arrives
with "X-Spam-Level: *****" in the message header
move it to the "Possible Spam" folder
and stop processing more rules
The rest of my rules than filter mailing lists into mailboxes. I check
the Possible Spam for false positives everyday, and the Spam once a week
or so.
- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
Essays announced on <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael C. Berch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 13:24
To: Spamassassin List
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [Fwd: I have some exclusive information for you.]
It seems to me that it would be useful to have a single repository of
false negatives (i.e., stuff that slipped past SA) with some sort of
automated process to crunch the messages to produce fodder for rules
updates.
This would be most useful for body tests, since people would be using
all sorts of methods of re-sending the messages, including manual
cut-and-paste and other methods which do not preserve the original
intact header.
One meta-rule is that we might not want to consider messages that scored
above a certain threshold, since most peoples' SAs would have caught
them anyway. (There's no point in looking at a message that scored 5.5
which someone sent it because it got through their SA that is set to
trigger at 6.0, for example.) One interesting number to know would be
what percentage of SA users use the default score (5) as the spam
threshold, and how many have raised or lowered it.
I think this would help keep the spam-phrases, porn_NN, etc., rules
fresh.
I'm not volunteering (yet) but I have some ideas about how this might
work.
--
Michael C. Berch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________________
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We
supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
_______________________________________________________________
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
