At Wed Oct 30 18:37:32 2002, Jan Korger wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Tim Helton wrote: > > > score USER_AGENT_OE -0.3 > > score USER_AGENT_MUTT -4.109 > > score USER_AGENT -1.143 > > > > > > Maybe it would be beneficial to see if more than 1 user agent is > > detected, and give it a +2, instead of a -5 > definitely. Having both OE and mutt seems to be common in spam messages > now.
There's a set of rules in CVS for testing, which check that the message-id looks sane given the claimed mailer (from the x-mailer and user-agent headers). These do help in this situation (since the message-id format will only match one of the alleged mail clients). The USER_AGENT_MUTT score in 2.41 was very high. In 2.43 it's -1.176, and it'll probably get closer to 0 if more of these spams reach the corpora used for setting the scores for 2.50. Martin -- Martin Radford | "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | men just upload their important stuff -o) Registered Linux user #9257 | on ftp and let the rest of the world /\\ - see http://counter.li.org | mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds _\_V ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
