Hello Daniel, Wednesday, June 18, 2003, 11:17:06 PM, you wrote:
DQ> Well, the rule (renamed in 2.60-cvs) does false positive about 0.03% of DQ> the time: Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think the nice thing about SA is that it is user customizable - a false positive rate of more than 0.03% in large scale mail management environment might be untenable, whereas in a smaller scale environment it is negligible, and "safer" to adjust upwards to the extent that false negatives can be avoided. Also, you have said that SA parses out the Base64 comment, but the post that started this discussion came from someone who had a heavily porn-laden piece of spam come through, and their SA failed to register any tests on the body. I myself have seen Base64 encoded emails get by SA when by virtue of the content, they should have scored much higher -- but I admit I never tried to debug to find out why - I just assumed that the encoding was the source of the problem. (I noticed the Base64 issue, particularly with porn-spam, several months ago, with an earlier version of SA). So I apologize for any misinformation I might have posted - maybe this is a system specific problem (that is, maybe it has more to do with the configuration of the mail handling software on a particular system than SA's capabilities) .. I don't know. -Abigail ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
