Hi all,
I know everyone is sick of hearing about complaints about the habeas fiasco.
(I know I am) But ... a recent habeas spam landed as FN with a score of 4.8.
what's interesting is that it only scored a BAYES_50. That's because the
habeas headers had been learnt as primarily ham so far. My question, should
bayes ignore the habeas headers by default?
I tried to remove the habeas headers mannually, and the spam came up with a
score of 21.7 instead, with BAYES_99. My understanding is that (at least
currently), habeas is not a reliable characteristic of Spam or Ham, there is
no reason why the spammer should be able to defeat both mechanisms at the
same time.
Thanks,
Pedro
Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
1.2 WHY_WAIT BODY: What are you waiting for
0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 50 to 56%
[score: 0.5075]
1.1 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 BODY: Razor2 gives confidence between 51 and 100
[cf: 100]
0.3 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
0.6 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset
1.0 MIME_BASE64_TEXT RAW: Message text disguised using base64 encoding
0.1 BIZ_TLD URI: Contains a URL in the BIZ top-level domain
1.0 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
2.9 DCC_CHECK Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)
-8.0 HABEAS_SWE Has Habeas warrant mark (http://www.habeas.com/)
1.5 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?212.142.156.254>]
1.6 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE
1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts
0.1 MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME Message looks like Outlook, but isn't
Content analysis details: (21.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
1.2 WHY_WAIT BODY: What are you waiting for
0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
1.1 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 BODY: Razor2 gives confidence between 51 and 100
[cf: 100]
5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
0.3 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
0.6 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset
1.0 MIME_BASE64_TEXT RAW: Message text disguised using base64 encoding
0.1 BIZ_TLD URI: Contains a URL in the BIZ top-level domain
1.0 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
3.5 PYZOR_CHECK Listed in Pyzor (http://pyzor.sf.net/)
2.9 DCC_CHECK Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)
1.5 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?212.142.156.254>]
1.6 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE
1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts
0.1 MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME Message looks like Outlook, but isn't
--
Chicago, n.:
Where the dead still vote ... early and often!
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
