Kinda hard to say. Most of it IS spammy and valid MIME as far as I could tell. I did catch a few clearly-non-spam (evite) things in the corpus.
The lack of Received lines does mess up quite a few DNS related tests (RBL, MX records) but I wouldn't think that alone made a 23% difference (83% on Justin's sample) in success. Remember - I ran SA 2.43 in both cases with -L so most of the stuff relying on that isn't relevant. but you can check it out yourself at ftp://ftp.spamarchive.org/archives. --- Matthew Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Michael Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > I will note that they are poorly organized, with the headers hand > > edited, and useful things like the RECEIVED headers removed. > Hence > > all DNS stuff wasn't worth running. Plus I'm dubious about what > > they've done to the formattting,etc. > > If what your saying is correct, and they've done a lot of editing > to these emails, are they reliable to test against? Wouldn't > (excus > e the term) virgin spam be more approporiate to test against? > > Or are the things they've changed irrelivant? > > -- > Matthew Davis > http://dogpound.vnet.net/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > You forgot to do your backup 16 days ago. Tomorrow you'll need > that version. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Saturday, November 30, 2002 / 12:21AM __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Get the new Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0002en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
