I don't see the score you got.
is this with personalized tweaking of the rules?
The problem I have with doing that is that I'm setting up spamassassin for individual users who do not have shell access to modify their settings... so of course the best thing would be for the default rules to catch spam as well as yours seems to indicate.
Something I'm missing?
--Tomki
At 19:51 12/05/2002 -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:16:08PM -0800, Tomki wrote: > It's getting pretty bad... still a lot better than with anything else in > my experience, granted, but the number of false negatives really is rising. > > This example is a prime example, and really pretty amazing in the score:Y 5 1:<1pv4ec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BAYES_99,CTYPE_JUST_HTML,HTML_50_70,HTML_FONT_COLOR_NAME,HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED,HTML_WEB_BUGS,T_HTML_50_70_IMGS3,T_HTML_CONSEC_IMGS01,T_HTML_CONSEC_IMGS01B,T_HTML_IMAGE_AREA11,T_HTML_MAX_IMG_RATIO04,T_HTML_MESSAGE,T_HTML_MIN_IMG_RATIO6,T_HTML_NUM_IMGS08,T_HTML_P1_40_60,T_HTML_P2_50_60,T_HTML_SHOUTING3,T_HTML_TAG_EXISTS_CENTER bayes=1 Looks pretty good to me actually. Granted, 4 points is from BAYES_99 (I like bayes=1), but there are a ton of T_ rules which only get .01 points at the moment. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "True hackers don't die, their ttl expires" - Unknown
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
