Has anyone else NOT been bothered by this???
Not terribly.. I had a few sneak through, but most got tagged.
One of them did manage to get a BAYES_44 rating, but that quickly changed with a little training.
However, I will admit that I've been running with a reduced score for SWE since the day it was introduced to spamassassin.. I read the sadev discussion on scoring for it, decided for myself I disagreed, and chose a less severe score for it and have used it ever since... It's never had more of a score impact on my system than -4.0, and was running at -3.0 when the recent spam run hit.
I have however chosen to not be complacent about this spammer. I've added several custom rules _specificaly_ targeting that particular spammer, figuring that the ***** is going to try other tricks as well, and I may as well adapt my systems to single them out and give them fairly high scores.. There's lots of common static text in them that makes a good target for rules.
It also ensures these spams will be nicely over the autolearn-spam threshold so my system will keep learning this particular spammer's latest tricks.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
