Re: [SAtalk] SPAM Question

[Matt Kettler]

Hmm, it looks like if it got caught it the past it was due to header-rules firing off or razor checks matched it.. They must have cleaned up their forged headers a bit, or they revised the body substantially it may not have made it to razor yet.. There's really not a whole lot in the way of spam phrases that SA looks for in the body of the message itself.

2.43 gives these score results (admittedly this is NOT very representative since the email has been copy-pasted and any encoding is lost).

SPAM: Content analysis details: (2.90 hits, 5.9 required)
SPAM: WHY_WAIT (0.3 points) BODY: What are you waiting for
SPAM: FREE_WEBSITE (0.3 points) BODY: Free Website
SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_05_08 (1.6 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 05 to 08 (medium)
SPAM: [score: 6]
SPAM: RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM (0.4 points) RBL: Received via a relay in relays.osirusoft.com
SPAM: [RBL check: found 72.100.185.216.relays.osirusoft.com., type: 127.0.0.6]
SPAM: X_OSIRU_SPAMWARE_SITE (0.3 points) RBL: DNSBL: sender is a Spamware site or vendor
SPAM:


At 12:49 PM 2/7/2003 -0800, Abel Jeffcoat wrote:

Does anyone know why this was snuck through? I'm using SA 2.44

This came from one of my users..

Sincerely,

Abel Jeffcoat

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk