At Mon Jun 30 07:14:27 2003, ODHIAMBO Washington wrote: > One of the rules for this version was against using a port other than > the standard HTTP port. Well, since this is -CVS, I may as well keep > quiet, but I wonder why this rule is here, since people are free to use > other ports for HTTP.
The rule was introduced in 2.20, so it has been around for a while. You're quite right that you can run HTTP on ports other than port 80, but it's not particularly common. The S/O ratio for this rule in 2.55 (in STATISTICS.txt) is 0.843, so it's not a particularly wonderful rule and explains why it has a maximum score of around 0.6. So the answer is that the presence of a URL in a mail using a non-standard port for HTTP is at least suggestive that the mail may be spam, since it's much more likely to be seen in spam than non-spam. But it's by no means conclusive which is why it has a low score. The question is somewhat analogous to asking, "Why does a message in HTML with odd fonts and lots of colours get a high score? Surely people are free to send HTML mails with odd fonts and lots of colours?" - the answer is the same: such mails are statistically more likely to be spam. 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 sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
